Freed from facts, Abbott goes ballooning

The Opposition Leader's discomfiture in the face of certain large repositories of expertise is a matter of record.

He disapproves of climate scientists, of Australian economists on the whole, and he has no time at all for the work of Treasury officials, which should make things fairly interesting should the public distaste for Julia Gillard bear its probable fruit two years hence, and install Mr Abbott as their lord and master. Awkward.

After several months spent demanding details of the Government's carbon tax, Mr Abbott has not let the details themselves break his stride for a nanosecond. Treasury can predict until it's blue in the face that the cost of living will rise by a modest 0.7 per cent; Mr Abbott doesn't believe it, and campaigns accordingly.

In one sense, he's living the dream. A political campaign that is 100 per cent rhetoric is - to any politician - as a milkshake that is 100 per cent Milo would be to any child. And after all, as Reagan famously told the Republicans in 1988: "Facts are stupid things".

Once you've severed the guy ropes of obeisance to empirical evidence, many happy hours of ballooning lie ahead. Mr Abbott's liberation from such constraints allows him to lead a free-market party while advocating a carbon reduction scheme that is interventionist to its core. Or to deplore, for instance, a goal of reducing Australian emissions by 5 per cent over the next nine years as "crazy", while simultaneously holding that goal as sworn Coalition policy. Last week, when the Leader of the Opposition assured a group of Victorian voters that carbon dioxide was a tricky gas on account of being "weightless", it seemed for a glorious moment as if he was hedging his bets even on the work of Newton.

But Mr Abbott's one-man battle against demonstrable logic has entered a new and compelling phase.

After a long period of ignoring expert opinion where it does not mesh with his own, the Opposition Leader has taken the ambitious next step, and spent this week ignoring himself.

First, he claimed that he had never supported a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, a proposition for which the contradicting evidence is so plentiful that it seems insulting to list it, although Crikey's Bernard Keane summarised the material recently, formatted entertainingly as a long argument between the Opposition Leader and himself.

Then, he claimed - while in Victoria - that the Coalition's national emissions reductions could be accomplished without touching a hair on the head of any brown coal-fired power stations. This is precisely at odds with his own policy's promise to shutdown at least one brown coal station, and to pay generators to move to gas.

In fairness, no-one can claim that Mr Abbott didn't warn us about this. Twelve years ago, during the republic referendum campaign, he did point out rather forcefully that politicians weren't to be trusted. In the first of two memorable interviews with Kerry O'Brien last year, he warned voters not to believe anything he said unless he put it in writing. In the second, he warned especially that he shouldn't be asked anything much about the internet, seeing as he knew diddly-squat about all that stuff (he is a papyrus-to-the-node kind of guy).

This is why Mr Abbott is a very, very effective Opposition Leader. He pursues his opponent all day, and sleeps soundly at night unhaunted by the ghosts of his own inconsistency. Rather blackly, Mr Abbott's central case against Julia Gillard is that you can't believe a word she says.

Malcolm Turnbull, a man whose own consistency on the topic of carbon pricing borders on the unfashionable, is in trouble today for his speech last night suggesting that people listen to the experts on climate change.

Mr Abbott, when interviewed in 2009 by Tony Jones about his thoughts on climate change, confessed to have read none of the IPCC report and just a bit of the sceptic Ian Plimer's book before arriving at his opinion that climate change was a bit overdone. "I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents," he told Jones. "But look, I think I am as well-versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be."

Mr Turnbull, who has read widely on the subject, delivered a lecture last night in which he encouraged voters to draw reasonable conclusions from empirical evidence, and to listen to the science on climate change.

Everything he said was well-contained within the Coalition's formal policy position. One suspects it was checked and triple-checked so as not to offend a single strand of the party's official position on climate change. And yet the whole thing was deeply, Turnbullishly off-message.

Why? Because on climate change in the Coalition, it's not loyal simply to recite the party's formal policy line. Loyalty demands you deliver the policy with a wink, to show you don't mean it.

Comments (526)

chipinga:

22 Jul 2011 4:02:00pm

I guess Abbott believed the NBN would blow out and it has, Treasury has made some massive blunders in their various calculations, many economist have grave fears on the carbon tax and Australia losing it's competitive edge and the science on climate change is not settled, certainly the carbon tax will have no effect on climate, while the rest of the world burns more coal for the next 50 or more years.

.....Understandable why Abbott sleeps so well while Gillard runs around shooting herself in the foot at every opportunity.

Malcolm:

22 Jul 2011 5:32:27pm

And Abbott and Hockey would be a loss to the Liberals why? The first has no demonstrable relationship with reality at all, and the second has no grasp of his shadow portfolio. Win win situation for the Libs I'd say.

Ivan:

22 Jul 2011 6:17:52pm

During the 2007 election, Environment Minister Turnbull announced that his Government would give $10 million of public money to a company called The Australian Rain Corporationto develop an untried Russian technology that aims to cause rain to fall from the skyeven when there are no clouds. Literature suggests that the technology is based on bogus science.Common sense suggests the "technology" is based on bogus science.

The Australian Rain Corporation presented research documents written in Russian, explained by a Russian researcher who spoke to local experts in Russian.http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2095134.htm

Just like Abbott, Turnbull has no demonstrable connection with technology or reality.

JmB:

23 Jul 2011 6:18:50pm

... with the amusing reality that Malcolm T is to the Libs as Kevin R is the the ALP: talented and be-musingly adored by the public yet despised and loathed by their own. Truly, I have a better chance of being PM for **both** the ALP and the Coalition than either Malcolm or Kevin, and yet confess happily to lacking both the ambition and the talent for the job!

PS - I agree that both Abbott and Hockey, in a rational world, would be seen as a drag on their parties. But we no longer live in a rational world: it is a News Ltd/shock jock world

Uncle Buck:

23 Jul 2011 9:36:21pm

I disagree. Hockey does have a good grasp of the economic portfolios. He showed that when he was finance minister. His problem is that Abbott keeps him in a straightjacket.Also @MTC; Turnbull is in the eastern suburbs, Joe and Abbott are in "North Shore nests".

maj:

Greg Warner:

22 Jul 2011 9:16:47pm

To demonstrate why your opinion is not worth the energy you expended on your keyboard, Malcolm Turnbull's electorate is on the South Shore of Port Jackson.It's Abbott's electorate which is on the North Shore.If you cannot get the most basic and easily reasearchable facts right, why should anyone give two cents for your opinion?

Robert:

23 Jul 2011 4:08:43pm

The worst thing is for vitriolic attacks within a political party, where one member will launch every possible sneaky, underhanded backstabbing attacks upon another, especially when then other member is becoming far more popular in the public eye.Malcolm Turnbull seems a reasonable and respectable MP, shallow name calling attacks and back room backstabbing and threats do great disservices to Australian politics and just do greater harm to Abbots standing, which is already greatly suffering, from his arrogance and ego. Abbott is starting to come off as the worst of American politicians, someone who would be far more at home in the US Tea Party, than in Australian Politics.Australian's are far more interested in policies, than in defeat or victory for particular politicians and their shallow political shenanigans. Personally I see both Abbot and Gillard, political careers as being far too much about them and not enough about the future of Australia and Australian, whilst Gillard does seem to have gone political astray, Abbot has disappeared right off the reservation and is out in the back of beyond hunting venomous bunyips, viscous yowies and man eating drop bears, in his battle for religious political glory.

Bat:

Enough Please:

22 Jul 2011 4:52:56pm

None of assertions are true I'm afraid, no NBN blow out and the vast majority of economists are supportive of a carbon tax as are the scientists with climate changeYou must join this century and escape the 1950's. Abbott is a dinosaur, our George Dubya just waiting to happenHe and his right wing loons doubled the US deficit, now that is a fact

No consensus:

23 Jul 2011 11:28:37pm

The scientists do not agree....the is little consensus on human induced climate change. While there is consensus that human activites have an effect, the extent of this effect is widely varied through scientists across many fields. Some scientists consider the IPCC to have an extreme view on human induced climate change and there have been questions raised by the NIPCC as to their claims. "N" in NIPCC stands for 'non governmental'. Why the need for so many scientists to form a non government influenced organisation?

I have friends who are scientists in different fields......they inform me to look beyond what is written in a science report before forming any opinion on it's content.

EssJay (The Original):

22 Jul 2011 4:57:41pm

The World According to Abbott:

1. Treasury is wrong;2. Dr Ken Henry was wrong;3. Economists are wrong;4. The OECD are wrong;5. The IMF are wrong;6. The Government is wrong;7. Malcolm Turnbull is wrong;8. Voters were wrong in not electing them;9. The Greens are wrong;10. The Independents are wrong;11. The Scientists are wrong;12. The IPCC are wrong;...Who else have I missed eh Tony?

Peter O:

john in brisbane:

23 Jul 2011 3:48:20pm

Rule one: Mr Abbott is always right.Rule two: If Mr Abbott is wrong, the wrong wing chuckleheads in the press will focus on something negative about Labor while while reaffirming that Mr Abbott is right.

Stunts and Slogans :

maj:

22 Jul 2011 6:01:52pm

Ah! Then Tony got the NBN right. Now we will see the ALP twisting a turning when people suddenly realise that the 100MB high speed broadband the ALP promised would make everyones life so much better will in fact now be just 12BG. yes thats right. The same fee you are now paying for the same speed approx under ADSL So what was all the talk about 100 MB ??? Oh yes you can certainly enjoy the benfits of the world saving amazingly wonderful productive and regional friendly high speed broadband 100MB BUT it will come with a $200 a month price tag. And all of it filtered to get rid of anything nasty. The ALP are hopeless.

Question everything:

Amused Qld:

22 Jul 2011 8:28:09pm

All left wingers sucking of the public teat. There is more money in climate change than not - when will you all wake up? Including Annabel who has been, like the other ABC journo's, told to go out hard on Abbott and help Gillard turn this around. Just like she told them to so they dont get investigated and muzzled like the Aus journo's.

letsbefrank:

23 Jul 2011 8:45:22am

Gotta love the childish strawman argument, falsify your opponents position and make your arguement look good by comparison.

1. Treasury is wrong;A Large number of the former senior treasury staff from JWH's era have either resigned, been sidelined or had their concerns about inaccurate treasury studies ignored.2. Dr Ken Henry was wrong;who? He is a political appointee by the current government. See 1 above. He is sometimes right, and has deeply seated political views that are evident in his economic analysis.3. Economists are wrong;See 2 above. The financial experts gave America and much of Europe their financial crises. Put an economist with a flawed understanding of the financial market and a poltical agenda in charge of government policy and you get the financial crises engulfing much of the world. We dont want that in Australia.4. The OECD are wrong;See 3 above. The OECD was founded in 1961, they contributed to the world economic crises we have by failing to warn and act to prevent the current situation they are now 'rescuing' fools from.5. The IMF are wrong;see 4 above.6. The Government is wrong;yes, you've got one point right.7. Malcolm Turnbull is wrong;I'd rather have an open debate between leaders of a political party than the closed door secret meetings the unions/greens/ALP have had.8. Voters were wrong in not electing them;The Polls show voters have realised that. People want an election today so we can show our disgust.9. The Greens are wrong;duh.... that is obvious on so many of their policies.10. The Independents are wrong;The independants are politically expedient cheap hired votes to 'secure' political power. Their own electorates will punish them. Bob Katter is good entertainment and a breath of fresh air. Even Tony acknowledges Bob as good fun.11. The Scientists are wrong;Every scientist will disagree with another scientist on some issue. Climategate proved 'scientists' can commit fraud and not be disbarred or banned for life. Scientists have proven the 'climate change' reality is much less than the fearmongers have exaggurated.12. The IPCC are wrong;Yes, see 3,4,5 & 11 above. Science has been politicised and we are seeing the IPCC retract several of it's previous positions, the reduced forecast for sea level change is just one of many changes in forecasts the IPCC is being forced to acknowledge.

This news article was a political opinion piece, not based on factual research. I expected better from the ABC.

stirrer:

23 Jul 2011 4:59:15pm

Treasury has gotten it wrong lots of times and they are NOT the smartest economic minds, a distressing number having never worked for a for profit organisation and clearly are not the best paid either!

We all make mistakes.

Economists get it wrong most of the time, bubbles, depressions, soveriegn failures.

OECD is not the font of all knowledge.

IMF has been getting wrong about the PIGS and plenty of other places for decades.

Well it's Labor, do I really need to say more?

Malcolm is likely wrong on many things, if he was right more times would he not be leader?

The voters will soon have another opportunity to test this theory.

See above comment about Labor and add a hessian bag or three.

No they are NOT Independends, you have two zealots and a clown, take your pick.

Scientists get it wrong and make every mistake in a small field, what's left is learning and fact, clearly they get it wrong more times than not as well.

IPCC, hmmm here we must wait and see, going alone is just about always wrong.

Bat:

23 Jul 2011 6:57:39pm

Let's simplify your argument; Tony has said that (in broad categories) the Money Managers, the Politicians and the Climatologists are wrong? Well we are entering a really bad economic crisis (perhaps worse than the Great Depression), the average Aussie is in strife because of the lack of effective government (roof bats, NBN, ineffective immigration policies,etc) and the scientists (some) cannot cure the ills of the small human body yet with arrogant certainty they (different scientists but similar arrogance) can predict the that the planet will warm, sea levels will rise unless WE? do something? Well, these events (made made and natural disasters ) have all happened before. Guess those cavemen with their lack of population control caused all the present problems; Tony Abbot or not! To which cavemen antecedents do you lay claim, Possum?

Philby:

22 Jul 2011 4:57:44pm

Chipinga or maybe people like yourself overstate the matter. Blowout in the NBN? How? Many economistys have grave fears, when did this happen? In the last 5 minutes? Science unsettled? Well at last a commentor who has direct access to the science community, actually, I thought the sience is settled, the majority of scientists agree against your statement. Do you write Tony Abbott's lines for him?

Karan:

22 Jul 2011 5:00:57pm

Are you saying that the prices offered by one provider in the early stages of the rollout indicate that the cost has "blown out"?

You'd also do well to read Simon Hackett's blog post introducing the pricing, where he is fairly transparent about the cost pressures: http://blog.internode.on.net/2011/07/21/nbn-retail-pricing-pressure-points/

LeapingLeroy:

Phil:

22 Jul 2011 5:24:14pm

Which economists "have grave fears on the carbon tax" chipinga? Go on, name them. Would these be the same economists who also have grave fears about the science of climate change and are paid by the fossil fuel industry to say so?

Goanna:

Amused Qld:

22 Jul 2011 8:23:31pm

Well said, those overrated economists didnt even see the GFC coming, even though Costello warned of it. They get their forecasts so wrong that it is changed considerably every quarter. They really dont have a clue and are just glorified number crunchers. Bit like the meterologists at BOM, they cant even predict rain two days out, yet the highly paid fools expect us to believe that they can predict the climate 10,20, 50 years outThat is why Abbott sleeps so well, he has the brains to take no notice of these morons.

JimD:

average voter:

23 Jul 2011 8:47:35am

I agree with you Abbott is only reflecting the views of the electorate.....Climate Change maybe real but Australian's don't want to price carbon if we are the only fools doing so.The arguement that China is doing their share just does not wash with the voter, we see billions of tonnes of coal sent to China then are told that we cannot burn it ourslves, this just does not wash with the voter...... the lost trust of Gillard and the Labor Party is now so intrenched that the voters have stopped listening to her and her Party....Thats why Abbott can sleep well at night!

The working man:

Let's see what kind of week Abbott had with his climate changePolicy. His target is 5 percent reducation in emission by 2020 Comment this week - we would be crazy to have this target.

His policy wil include shutting down or Convertting Hazelwood power satiation to gas fired. Comment this week- Hazelwood would not shut- down we will open more brown fired power power station,the complete opposite to what Robb and Hunt were quoted.

His quote - We would be crazy to act before China. China this week announced trialling a carbon trade in five Provincial areas moving to national scheme in 2015.T So a pretty confusing week I guess, had a look at week-end Australian newspaper. As is the norm not a word of these policy differences, the same old bagging of the P.M. and Labor. Good quality journalism with a balanced view of the week in politics. Abbott is preferred P.M. Give me a break please.

Robin:

23 Jul 2011 5:27:47pm

I agree wholeheartedly with @Nina. Rather than spout utter nonsense about a lack of scientific consensus, go and get informed properly - see: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

and don't accept the nonsense from dangerously ignorant sources like Fox News and their ilk:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107200009

John Ward:

23 Jul 2011 9:26:54pm

The Chinese so far this year have spent 25 Billion dollars on alternative energy and over the next 4 years will spend 800 Billion dollars getting out of coal and fossil fuels.Saving the coal industry is an already failed policy.Tony Abbott is suffering from Paradigm Paralysis.

Maria Totto:

23 Jul 2011 9:54:13pm

It is actually to Abbotts credit not to be stampeded into blind following of the new "green religion" but rather to prove a strong leader looking after the interests of his country and its people ..." in the face of certain large repositories of expertise ..." Annabel, everyone is aware of your selective interpretation of science and 'scientific expertise'. Only people with no brains will blindly follow no matter who and no matter what is presented as 'undisputed science'. Some of you journalist have replaced jour Christian religions with the new faith of science, where the scientists are never to be questioned or disputed but blindly followed. You should at least expand your circle of scientists and you would realize how much their opinions differ and even contradict each other. It appears you chose only the ones you agree with your "... large repositories of expertise ..." Even if you apply your own logic it is easy to see how illogical some of the 'scientific' claims are and even worse how illogical some of the political actions based on the illogical scientific claims are. I admire true scientists. However the ones who choose to get involved in politics deserve the same treatment as any other politician - extreme skepticism and distrust.

Simon Black:

23 Jul 2011 11:17:42pm

I admire true scientists. However, the ones who choose to get involved in politics deserve the same treatment as any other politician - extreme skepticism and distrust. Frankly Annabel, I don't have much time for your "... certain large repositories of expertise...", because they are mostly government representatives; i.e. politicians.

Sync:

22 Jul 2011 4:03:13pm

I love the way he takes Ian Plimers' climate change stuff at face value.

I wonder if he's read Ian Pilmer's work "Telling Lies for God" where Pilmer hammers the Creationists. And that's the tragedy when you get somone like Pilmer who, as a geologist has done excellent work but then steps outside their expertise and makes a fool of themselves.

John:

22 Jul 2011 4:57:27pm

And so he should hammer creationists. 'God is not great' as Christopher Hitchens states.....the writers of the 2 'good books' rode around on donkeys, didn't understand that the earth revolves around the sun and knew less about the world than an 8 year old knows now. Plimer makes more sense than many and he is no 'tragedy.'

Joe:

John Coochey:

22 Jul 2011 5:02:48pm

Well he actually has almost identical qualifications to Dr Gliksman but he is ok because he is a warmist. I note Tim Flannery's first degree was in English Literaturem subsequent studies into the evolution of kangaroos and Any Pitman is a geographer. That may explain why Flannery ia on record saying it would take a thousand years for cooling if all human activity ceasedm, Pitman says twenty. When the Chief Scientis, Ian Chubb was asked which was right he answered on ABC Radioi, quote "I do not have a clue, not a clue!" If he doesn't who can say?

Righto:

23 Jul 2011 10:26:42am

John Coochey proves exactly whys climate sceptics simply have no idea what they are on about, intentionally spin things and repeat arguments that have been quashed repeatedly, and do not deserve to be engaged seriously.

Tim Flannery was discussing how long it would take to tempreature levels to revert back to normal if we stopped tomorrow, which is indeed 1000 year marks.

Any Pitman was discussing how long it would take for warming to stop increasing if we stopped tomorrow, being 20 year mark.

In both cases, what we are trying to do is stop the amount of warming, not warming per se. The Amount is incredibly important because we can adapt to some warming, but not catastrophic levels of warming.

anote:

23 Jul 2011 2:16:00pm

A common thread between Plimers hammering of Creationists and the way he and his cronies hammer climate science is the use of ridicule. Geology forms a good basis for the facts underlying the ridicule of Creationism because of overwhelming evidence on a time scale out of all proportion to the time scale of creationism. The time scale does not apply to the ridicule of climate change in so far as Geological time scales of themselves do not preclude a new event, whether human induced or not, causing detriment in a comparatively short time on a global scale..

Plimers hammering of climate science and the way some of his associates, associations and followers have categorised AGW belief as like a blind faith religion is especially interesting. I am suggesting that Plimer has taken the tactics of his ridicule of Creationism only to transpose himself to be the subject of the same kind of ridicule because he did not have the facts to support himself.

The connection with religion is not accidental but it is hypocritical.

Pells public support of Plimer is interesting in this regard. I am not suggesting a conspiracy, only closed minds to new evidence.

Dr Paul Smith:

23 Jul 2011 11:29:19pm

I think you will find that Prof tim Flannery holds a BSc Hons and PhD in Zoogeography and Evolution, and is very eminent in the ability to discuss the effects of changes in climate on the ecology of the Planet. I was at the Uni when he was doing his PhD.

Dr Paul Smith:

23 Jul 2011 11:31:39pm

The amount of greenhouse warming gas we have put into the atmosphere is huge. It is not just CO2, it is methane, it is notroxiddes, it is sulfoxides, it is CFCs, if is HFC's. These have a much longer life than 20 years. You need a much wider reading and condiseration to find this and understand the problem with the IR windows.

No consensus:

Flannery also stated the people in the Torres Straight Islands were being evacuated due to rising sea levels. Several authorities were contacted to confirm this statement. It never happened!

Just like it was mentioned in the media the other day regarding young children. If my kids ever come home from school and start drawing pictures/talking of planets with dead people all over them because of 'fear mongering' by a teacher. I will use every resource available to see that teacher sacked!

JasonJ:

22 Jul 2011 5:46:14pm

Except that Plimer ISN'T really stepping out of his area of expertise.

Unless you, like so many others, really do think that geologic samples and history (you know, actual large-scale records, not years or decades but centuries and millennia) just don't matter when discussing such truly long-term subject matter as climate (not that anyone actually discusses any more, they just take a position and rant).

If only one thing can be taken from Plimer, is should be this - climate is not, has never been, and can never be static, stable, "normal" - it, like all other things, must change. The important thing is time-scale.

Ford:

22 Jul 2011 4:04:46pm

I feel trapped between a rock and a hard place.On one hand I can feel confident Abbott will always take the low road...makes him an uninspiring leader, but a predictable one and ultimately the Australian system will prevent him from getting too extreme.On the other hand I can't have any confidence in Gillard as she has no principals...she doesn't stand for anything that I can see other than keeping herself employed, and I genuinely fear after the Carbon Tax policy (and subsequent failure to sell it) was released that she is actually intellectually incapable of performing her job.Do I choose the man who consistently takes the low road because that's what he genuinely believes, or the woman who takes the low road whenever the men that put her in power tell her to, but may occasionally do the right thing? And frankly the amount of hate generated by Gillard's decisions frightens me, I don't think we've ever had a leader that inspires such vitriol.The fact there's increasingly little difference in their policies doesn't make it any easier.

Id:

23 Jul 2011 3:12:33pm

Why is our Prime Minister(and how many ignorant sods are treating her with bogan disrespect?),being blamed for all sorts of things by the Murdoch Press? As leader of the Government she discusses all matters of policy with her many parliamentary colleagues.She is NOT a dictator.Abbott is the one swanning around making ad hoc pronouncements. His colleagues need to read "The Telegraph" to find out what he is talking about.

Clotho:

dmc:

23 Jul 2011 5:29:38pm

Labor supporters want to hyperventilate with claims Abbott always says no and he has no policies!! Maybe a few facts, prior to the 2007 election Labor were commonly referred to as "a policy free zone". Why would any sensible prty release the detail of major policies before an election is called? All that does is give the other side a chance to pinch the best of them or mount a negative campaign!

When it comes to negativity, take a look at the performance of the ALP in eleven years of opposition. They voted no to virtually everything but politicians pay rises!

Whenever I look at comments by Labor supporters I never cease to be amazed at the utter hypocrisy of many of them, or maybe you have to have a very short memory to support them, certainly the current polls would suggest that is the case!

At least Abbott is a straight talker, who mostly answers questions, unlike Gillard whose main objective in life appears to be to ignore the question and spout forth with a load of irrelevant pro Labor tripe or anti Coalition drivel, and she wonders why no one is listening, why would they???

JulieA:

Rusty:

22 Jul 2011 5:44:36pm

Ford,

If we could, knowing how incompetent both recent Labor governments have been, turn back the clock to the 2007 Federal election, I would be very confident that the Rudd/Gillard and subsequently Gillard/Swan Labor governments would have been trounced...

The vast majority of Australians knwo this is true...there has never been a worse government in Australia's political history than the Gillard/Brown socialist Labor/Green government...with the 3 Stooge "Independents" sweeping up the crumbs behind...

Question everything:

22 Jul 2011 6:20:39pm

Why do you think Abbott is about to deliver more ideas to Gillard. She has already changed the 1000 big polluters to 500 by taking fuel off the list because Abbott correctly forecast an increase in the price.

gweneth:

22 Jul 2011 7:11:20pm

Here we have a Prime Minister who is taking a stand on an unpopular issue - that could easily mean she is removed from office at the next election - because it is the right decision for the nations future and you say she doesnt stand for anything other than keeping employed? Cant really connect the dots on that one I am afraid. It is a non sequitur.

Chi:

22 Jul 2011 7:18:55pm

"And frankly the amount of hate generated by Gillard's decisions frightens me"I think it's the 'frightening' bit, that to a great extent is why people seem to have lost the capacity to process facts.I think 'she' is a bit of a ground breaking hero.You've got to give a bit of allowance for people trying to enact worthwhile but expensive policy when a majority of people are deluded.

And truly, that stuff about 'the men who put her in power'. What a load of crap. Caucus enthusiastically booted Rudd, probably because of the way he operated. The image of knives, which even some ABC talking heads bring up is purile.The NBN, maybe the most significant enablment of decentralisation ever for this huge country.The 'carbon tax', our first significant step as a nation towards changing our ranking as number per head CO2 emitters in the world."little difference in their policies" I think not.

toastman:

23 Jul 2011 8:28:45am

Abbott not getting too extreme! He is the leader of the most extreme right wing radical conservative party that has ever existed in Australia. Their policy ( of which we fight to obtain detail) have very little consideration for the average Australian and care only about power and increasing the wealth for the powerful!

redexile:

Rob-ACT:

23 Jul 2011 2:32:57pm

l think , the woman does have principles. Your words seem to suggest you have read too much of the anti Gilliard tripe served up by News Limited , ie: "she does'nt.........keeping herself employed". She could move to the back bench to do that (keep herself employed) and it will less stressful.

No, Julia has not been able to express herself from the get go, she has never had favourable media attention to do so. Therefore, we have never been able to see for ourselves what principles Julia has or what she stands for. People have been critical of her from day one for the manner in which she became PM and that has clouded our perception of her. Those perhaps are the same people who who call her, "Ju Liar".

Julia has never had the luxury of favourable media conditions, the last PM that was Howard. They helped establish the myth that Howard was our greatest ever PM - what rubbish

wozzer:

23 Jul 2011 5:58:06pm

"I don't think we've ever had a leader that inspires such vitriol"

It wouldn't be because of the litany of vitriol that consistently comes from the Murdoch press would it, notably The Australian? Murdoch supports the big (mining) end of town, and what better way to stop a consensus emerging on the need to Do Something about climate change than to criticise, criticise, criticise and quote the thoughts and opinions of the flat-earthers as if they have an equivalent evidence base to the IPCC.

John Ward:

23 Jul 2011 9:38:36pm

The system will stop him becoming too extreme?Under our system the PM simply advises the Govenor General that He/She should sign the proclamation and we are at war. There is no cabinet debate, no parliamentary debate. just the GG rubber stamp. How is that for a system that will restrain another G W Bush clone?This is the mob who says the system is not broke.

jocko:

23 Jul 2011 11:07:34pm

Hey Ford I've met him and he believes and stands for nothing that I can see except he is anti worker and pro big business and George Pell. It takes a really first class fool to say carbon dioxide is weightless. I teach science and it makes me sick.I do not like Gillard no teacher could, but Abbott is absolutely despicable as are several of his flunkies.

yys:

Hermit:

22 Jul 2011 5:31:32pm

Annabel published 18 articles in a row adverse to the opposition and if memory serves me correctly Abbott in particular. To her credit she acknowledged the fact and said that readers could expect balance over the political cycle.

Fran:

23 Jul 2011 8:37:49am

Funny that you lot only count what you imagine 'adverse to the opposition'; you don't count all the many articles written that are critical of the government. The articles critical of the government in all of the media, vastly outnumbers those shining a light on the opposition & on Tony Abbott in particular. Many of the anti-government articles in the News media stable in particular, have not even been based on facts, and are simply propaganda & fear mongering, which has given Abbott a free ride for far too long. I for one appreciate that someone is finally looking at Abbott & the inconsistency of his statements. He is downright ridiculous. It would be funny if it was not so frightening that people being misled by his outright lies might actually vote him in as our next PM.

JimD:

Wining Pom:

23 Jul 2011 8:56:55am

Goodness me, that's forensic following. I'll bet you, if I could be bothered enough, that I could list a lot of lies told on the trot by Abbott. But Annabel points to Bernard Keane who does an admiral job.

Gorey:

23 Jul 2011 6:02:17pm

And how many consecutive articles have Bolt, Akerman et. al., written ridiculing/attacking the Labor Party, in Government or not? Every single one of their columns is critical of Labor/The Greens, even if the thrust of their article isn't even about them. Annabel still has a long way to go to catch them.

gweneth:

Nina:

22 Jul 2011 5:11:58pm

I am sick and tired of reading unqualified attacks on scientists by people who have no solid ground to make any criticisms, negative or otherwise. Which scientists specifically are you referring to? Name them and explain their lack of rigour, or just keep your ignorant ad hominem attacks to yourself.

lionel hurst:

23 Jul 2011 4:11:54pm

Surely it is reasonable to question the bonafides of anyone or any group, whether they work in an area classified as science or not, if they take a particular stance that has politicial connections or overtones - especially if their employment depends on a political party or political grants?

Malcolm:

Gorey:

Jeremy:

22 Jul 2011 5:36:14pm

Are you serious? Climate science has whole organisations and departments dedicated to its study. NOAA, half of NASA, GISS, RSS, UAH, BOM, etc. Find me a university in Australia that doesn't have people studying climate? Not just climatologists either, botanists, zoologists, ecologists, and geologists are all publishing work on climate change. It's heading towards a point where you could almost borrow Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous expression and say; "In science, nothing makes sense except in the light of climate change."

gweneth:

Dr Robert Davidson:

24 Jul 2011 1:20:26am

There's no science at all being done in the denial hoax. Plenty of good science being done in climatology, as any scan of the peer-reviewed literature will quickly attest (it's published in the best scientific journals)

Cheenu Srinivasan:

22 Jul 2011 4:07:38pm

The next thing we are going to hear from Tony Abbott is that he is not the real Tony Abott. By some quirk of nature, Tony Abott in his waking hours of a politician is different from Tony Abott in his dream and sleep states. He denies all science of his own existence and therefore according to him there are three Tony Abotts in him and they are all different and none of them is true!

Chris:

bruceC:

23 Jul 2011 8:36:35am

Boganville:22 Jul 2011 5:15:59pmApparently the electorate isn't terribly taken in by Gillard.

So is it Gillard's fault? You have to accept that some people don't get it no matter how much explanation you give. Not because of her policies but because they don't like the length of her nose or the colour of her her or the way she talks. We seem to put a lot of emphasis on trust and faith and the likes in a politician and an elected leader who has to lead and make decisions on our behalf.Or perhaps the Australian electorate is not as well informed and sophisticated as we had thought...

Katkinkate:

23 Jul 2011 8:57:32am

At least she's trying to do something. It's less important, at first, to get it perfectly right. Starting action on climate change gets people used to the issue being taken seriously and the action plan can be adjusted to be more effective as you find out what actually works. She's showing leadership over the issue which is better than burying her head in the sand like the deniers in the opposition.

JimD:

23 Jul 2011 9:00:07am

Abbot lies and misguidance with a lot of help from the Murdoch press with its niggle niggle niggle bit by bit undermining of what it does not like. Mr Negativus Extrordinus offers nothing. That for some is better than any change.

Goanna:

MD:

23 Jul 2011 12:01:03pm

That's true for every politician. Companies and their directors are responsible for presenting prospectuses and accounts that meet an agreed standard of accuracy. Politicians wrote the legislation that demands it, wouldn't it be a great thing if they were held to the standards they insist of others?

Mike:

Billy Bob Hall:

22 Jul 2011 4:09:25pm

"The Opposition Leader's discomfiture in the face of certain large repositories of expertise is a matter of record."

Oh dear. There's that failure of being able to do investigative journalism properly Annabel.I don't know what the remedy for this ailment is, but trying to lampoon Tony Abbott is not 'the cure'.Best seek a second opinion of course, maybe from your friend Andrew Bolt or Chris Ulman perhaps ?

Enough Please:

22 Jul 2011 4:50:17pm

I can't see one thing she has said about Abbott that isn't backed up by facts, same for her statements about TurnbullExactly what point are you trying to make about investigative journalism or was this a vain attempt to sound clever

Malcolm:

Billy Bob Hall:

22 Jul 2011 6:05:17pm

Ha ha... good one. I'm actually not required to 'handle the truth'. Truth is what it is and it is generally always 'self evident' (eventually). The Media is now fast waking up to this fact, for up until now they have been metaphorically speaking, 'asleep at the wheel'.

agil:

Schnappi:

22 Jul 2011 4:13:33pm

Hands up! anyone who understands abbott policies,personally do not know until I checked that day today is friday,which means at the end of the week with daily changes I still have no idea.At least the pm sticks to the story line,at least since the carbon price detail was announced.One thing is certain if the present opposition leader becomes pm,we can run lotto on which policy gets changed on what day of the week.with a huge jackpot for getting all 5 correct.

Andie :

22 Jul 2011 7:13:13pm

I know he has a real problem keeping up with which Julia he will face today and which policy she will back flip on today. It makes our heads spin so how do they keep up trying to reply to Gillards moveable feast of principles.

Sgt. Shultz:

Neil Grosvenor:

22 Jul 2011 4:14:06pm

It doesn't matter if you paint Mr Abbott as he really is. Nobody who counts actually pays attention to the ABC. You can shout and scream, show the record be rational but it makes no difference. The majority of the Australian public are paying no attention. Mr Abbott may be Australia's teflon man.

Hellfire:

Rage Reset:

23 Jul 2011 6:02:18pm

If you actually read it properly, "nobody who counts" refers to the greater public who don't pay attention to the ABC, or any reportage with integrity which questions the government. People who get their "facts" from Channel 9 and the Herald Sun. They count, because they're going to vote for a party lead by an inconsistent dunce who just mocked his own policy. He's talking about the Cheer Squad. No surprise you failed to understand - you're one of them!

Anne:

JoeConcerned:

22 Jul 2011 4:15:21pm

A man of fear. empty meaningless slogans, and getting a free ride in the Murdoch press at the same time. Australia's answer to George Bush. Ignores Economical reasoning which must be embarrasing for his collegues. They all follow a congo line after this clown. Maybe after a bit of proper press scrutiny, we will see how much depth this "caricature of a man" has. What does he really stand for - read Battlelines - he is a different man now.

schtaeve:

Philby:

22 Jul 2011 4:17:51pm

Annabel, it really amazes me that Tony Abbott has continued to be believed by such a large group of the public. Why do they believe in him? He does not present much of anything positive or for the future of this country. And, how will he work with the 3 groups of experts the Treasury, scientist and economists if he becomes PM? I would think they make up a large portion of experts a PM would normally take advice from. I don't see any of these, except Treasury because they have to, will want to help him on anything. It is a frustrating and genuinely scary vision having Tony Abbott as PM.

Jonesy:

Mark N:

24 Jul 2011 12:03:24am

I love the way the Climate alarmists suggest if you disagree you are some sort of Neanderthal troglodyte. Some sort of sub-human drone who needs to be led by the nose to decisions. I think it is both demeaning and frankly downright condescending to assume that most Australians disagree because they are ignorant. Its an offensive assertion and one which assumes an elitist an d arrogant position of assuming Australians are stupid. My opinion is that the lemmings are the poor silly fools who have bought the rhetoric served up by the politicians come climate change experts (used to be known as global warming until that became difficult to substantiate), who somehow have been seduced by the left side of politics. Please fix the environment and dont insult me with the BS as I am over it.

Joker:

Glenn:

23 Jul 2011 10:17:53pm

Actually I'd very much like to get an answer to that. I can't see a reason for why he's so preferred to Gillard, or why the Coalition is so preferred to Labor. I mean the rolling of Rudd is understandable but why are the polls so low? The OMG factor of having an ETS with a 3 year carbon price after the ETS with a one year carbon price was shelved in 2010 for 2 years, only to have a modified version brought in 2 years later is preposterous. The "OMG she lied and therefore she's evil and must leave!" comment I've heard so much of is just weird (and wrong).

I don't get it. The sheer mindless attack with NO alternative policy on many fronts is mind-boggling (and I think leaves his party wide open for attack - only senator Conroy seems to be capitalising on this but no one seems to pay much attention to telecommunications policy)

Boganville:

22 Jul 2011 4:18:40pm

Abbott may well have had many positions on different issues and a dodgy policy on climate change. He is also opposed by most scientists, all economists, the ABC, Fairfax, anyone in a taxpayer-funded job, most unionists, the well-to-do inner city latte set and a PM backed by all the resources of government.

But it's irrelevant. The polls demonstrate that, in the electorate's mind, Abbott's deficiences pale into insignificance relatve to Gillard's.

Consider the scale of her achievement: in record time her leadership has delivered polling that is almost as bad as that of NSW Labor.

Whereas she was once seen as the government's major asset, she is now the government's major liability. She has faltered badly on virtually every issue she has faced. She has lost the support of business and there is open discussion about the viability of her leadership.

Such is Gillard's position that she's now the subject of ridicule.

Whatever Abbott's failings, he can take credit for demonstrating that Gillard is not fit to be PM and that Labor is not fit to govern.

she is staking her future on a carbon tax - which wont fully come into effect for several years, which will then become something different with an ETS, and she has given on on trying to get an international solution to climate change.

labor's ratings are poor since her party has been producing rubbish results.

Mike:

24 Jul 2011 5:09:32am

Gillard decided that her only chance to remain PM was to ignore the wishes of the country. Unfortunately her judgment proved to be spectacularly wrong as usual and she has turned herself into the countries biggest political laughing stock and has probably made the ALP unelectable federally for 15 years.

agil:

This Abbott quote is just another example of his reliance on disinformation.

Abbott doesn't care about the science. Neither do his journalist mates at Murdoch papers.

A quote from Carl Bernstein in 1992 (Watergate reporter at Washington Post):

"The lowest form of popular culturelack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's liveshas overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage."

Australian journalism is infected with the disinformation disease. Not hard really: they just print whatever Abbott says. Some Murdoch organs are complicit. Other journos are guilty by omission for not serving it up to Abbott on his disinformation campaign.

More journos need to distance themselves from this disease like Annabel has here.

Wayne:

Brenton :

22 Jul 2011 4:21:02pm

Annabel. I generally like your unbiased and objective commentsAnd in this case it is really the lesser of two evils. One; (Gillard) who is ruled by dogma and has her strings pulled by the totally leftist greens. Woe betide Australia if these people have any longer than this cycle. I remember the Whitlam debacle. Two; (Abbott) a right wing catholic who thinks that God will conquer all and we all know the Catholic's track record since the Spanish Inquisition. Not too flash. I digress. At least the Libs have a track record on managing our money. And as for a tax on everything. I write this from Vietnam. The Chinese and Vietnamese think this is a joke.

The Chinese are doing something positive. 200 new clean nuclear power stations. All foolproof. Refer last nights Australia International channel program by Screen Australia.

In short this dangerous social experiment has the potential for real harm. But as in 72 the lemmings will follow.

Sure_sure:

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 4:23:25pm

My gosh, pinch me! Another mainstream journalist who has turned the spotlight on Abbott and suddenly realised the profound crappiness of the man as politician. The countdown has started for Abbott, a challenge is coming soon. What will happen next, will be fascinating to watch....

Robert Gavin:

22 Jul 2011 4:23:50pm

Brilliant. Just Brilliant, Annabelle. and you got it just right in the last line - the policy must be delivered with a wink to show you don't mean it. Turnbull has belled the cat. Thanks for some sense in this whole mucked up debate.

BK:

22 Jul 2011 4:24:08pm

Every day I am in disbelief at how he continues to have his voice broadcasted over the airways and how his opponents don't do exactly what he is doing to them. Repeat over and over one liners and question his honesty and beliefs. How do people continue to swallow his lies...

kali:

22 Jul 2011 4:24:33pm

Ananabel, in all the commentary and criticism of the Government's Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading program (and there has been a huge amount), I have barely seen any commernt and analysis of the Oppostions "Action Plan", and I have yet to to see one comment favourable to it.

Why is the media so lazy in holding the Opposition to account when they are putting themeslves up as the alternate Government?

Robert:

Wayne:

22 Jul 2011 6:26:56pm

BOGANvilleIt's the media that should shine a light on the oppositions shhhhh carbon policy wink. In a healthy democracy that is their role. But the only role Limited News plays is the wrecking ball on the end of Abbott's crane.

gweneth:

22 Jul 2011 7:26:00pm

But which policy is the right policy? Lets forget spin and Pr and analyse the facts. We are the most tertiary education population ever - turn your brains on people. What is all this baloney about people selling you things? It isnt the market place. Sheesh!

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 7:42:46pm

Boganville, great generals are those who understand that a battle is lost whilst his troops still believe they are winning. Such generals order a strategic retreat to regrup and establish the basis for a winning counterattack. On your side, that general is Malcolm Turnbull. You are most welcome to follow Abbott forward to the sound of the polls clarinet...good luck to you!

MiddleLander:

22 Jul 2011 9:13:30pm

Are you trying to be ironic here? Sure it's not the job of the media to be any polly's attack-dog, which is a point in this debate. Sections of the media have become both unabashed propagandists and unashamed apologists for the coalition. This isn't about subtleties or nuances of interpretation, it's about unfettered partisanism and hatred. Sound too strong? Have a listen to Alan Jones this morning dishing on Turnbull and Gillard. There's no turnaround alright, because most people's source of information is delivered by Murdoch, or his ilk. Look at today's The Australian if you require further proof. Between Shanahan, Ergas, Merritt, Lomberg, Franklin, 2 of the editorial pieces, etc, what chance would any government have of blowing a trumpet, let alone defending itself against false or trumped-up accusations? Many of us would, I'm sure, love to hear a rational defence of your leader's repetitive and contradictory gaffs, as AC outlined. Over to you.

Kali:

mark of melb:

23 Jul 2011 1:48:47pm

What can you do when the mainstream media are bias? Remember when the budget was release and the opps was harping about its an attack on the middle class and it was a bad budget, it made front page of newspapers, well the budget got through without any objections or changes but dudnt get any coverage or scrutiny of opps in the newspapers

Andie :

well:

22 Jul 2011 4:27:39pm

Governments need to be held to account and the oppositions job is to do that. Abbott is an expert at it. His guts and determination far exceed what I expected from him when he took the reigns. I could NOT vote for Turnbull now at all. Abbott will make a good PM and if he wins by a landslide, he should be able to put this country back on track again. Looking forward to Abbott as PM.

Elvis:

22 Jul 2011 5:32:09pm

But well - Tony is you could say, the ultimate critic, in that he holds the Government to account. Only problem is that most critics are only critics because they can't do the actual job properly. And given the holes in Tony's policies I suspect he's no different!

Wayne:

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 7:48:48pm

well, Abbott is a political sprinter, he's quickly running out of puff, and he still has two long years to go. You, and people like you are the only ones who believe that he can make it to the end. You are free to dream the wonderful dream, but Abbott's colleagues in Parliament are smarter than that, I can assure you.

steve parker:

22 Jul 2011 4:27:49pm

Annabel - its past all that now! No-one cares - the argument formulated by a silly weak PM has been lost and will not be reclaimed no matter what. As for TA - he takes Winston Churchill as his mentor - "history will be kind to me as I intend to write it." Labor hasn't got a chance against the guy - talk about rope a dope, or in this case dopes!

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 7:57:06pm

steve, the thinking members of the Liberal party have already realised that Abbott is a spent force. He has given all that he could, but it wasn't enough even to beat a pretty wounded government (thanks to the relentless campaign of the Murdoch press). Turnbull (a very fine mind, I must admit) has realised that and has started the process of take over of the leadership. Write this down: by the end of the year, there will be a challenge.

schtaeve:

mike moore:

22 Jul 2011 4:31:15pm

Thank you 'aunty' for reporting Malcolm Turnbaull's comments honestly and openly. Over at the newspaper baron's website it hardly rates a mention with no opportunity to comment on it. That seems a bit at odds with the implied impartiality of its byline of "News from all angles". Pretty obvious which regime they are rooting for.

gondor:

Scott:

Personally I love how quickly the ABC will forgive Julia Gillard for her "No Carbon Tax under a government I lead", but is still holding Abbott to task over a comment he made in 2009.

Then you seriously go and dredge up a comment about him not knowing anything about the internet from 12 years ago?

So Gillard is allowed to change her opinion 2 months later but Abbott not his? Glad there is at least some alternative news sites to read for the next few months untill Bob Brown shuts down News Limited.

Paulish:

22 Jul 2011 11:09:31pm

Kaching EssJay. But how dare you remember our right wing messiah's faults! Tony will stop the boats, debt, taxes etc whilst leading the country with the same wonderful results as experienced by the health system under his tutelage. I am totally bemused by the paradox of this man and his abject ignorance, and how people can seriously consider him a credible alternative leader. And to Scott, once Bob Brown shuts down News Ltd I am sure you can get a bingo card at the Bowling Club.

Felipe:

23 Jul 2011 1:18:30pm

No one is listening Essjay. Gillard has done the last chance that is given her, no one is impressed by her detailed carbon tax and of course her lies. Another poll moving down and down the 26% primary vote will see Gillard down the drain never to be resuscitated. Laurie Oakes' even suggesting the ALP court Malcolm Turnbull to replace Gillard. That wouldn't be a bad thing since you labor supporters are inclined to prefer Malcolm Turnbull in polls conducted. It is also a pity that there really is no one in the ALP who have the guts to voice out their opinion against this carbon tax lest he or she is runover by ALP party politics compared to the Coalition who have the priviledge to do a conscience vote. Now can you see the difference between Coalition party democracy versus ALP slap down democracy.

Bludger:

Scott, the old days of left wing bias at the ABC are long gone, if they ever really existed. Liberal links go to the top of the ABC, although this doesn't necessarily mean total bias.

It is clearly the opposite now on ABC Online - Tony Abbott/Liberals get a remarkably easy run. Always on the front foot, mostly given the picture and headline, given more space in the cut and paste from their press releases etc.

Let alone the ill balance and omissions - friction in the Labor party or some 'faceless man' is hammered, while precisely the same in the Liberal Party is ignored or glossed over. Real news such as 300+% more economists prefering the Labor Carbon plan to the silly Coalition one may not even be reported.

When a problem sneaks through, the Coalition is given free space to explain away the problem.

The persistent ABC Labor bias story is proof of this story's pudding - facts are meaningless now.

Fratelli:

22 Jul 2011 9:37:07pm

Abbott's interview in which he made his comment about his internet skills was in 2010, not 12 years ago.

In addition to EssJay's points, Abbott also stated in 2009 that if he were going to cut emissions, 'why not just use a simple tax'? At the same time he was also in favour of an ETS. But now suddenly its a Great Big New Socialist Tax, even though it's the same free-market solution he was once in favour of.

skeptic:

22 Jul 2011 10:21:39pm

>Then you seriously go and dredge up a comment about him not knowing anything about the internet from 12 years ago?

I remember this conversation, as it was during the last election campaign and in relation to the NBN. That would make it one year ago, not 12, even if Tony Abbott's vision of the internet does rather resemble what it looked like in 1999. In fact, if you go back up, you'll see AC clearly differentiates the timing between the 'Politicians can't be trusted' comment and the two interviews with Kerry O'Brien.

Again with Tony Abbott's supporters being able neither to read properly nor do maths. No wonder they won't trust the scientists on climate change.

Ross:

22 Jul 2011 4:35:51pm

Annabel, your ability to manipulate words and quotes is far superior to Tony Abbotts and almost as deceiptful as Gillard.One example is Mr Abbotts statement that Australias emissions target of 5% is crazy. But you don't mention that he said this in a comparison with Chinas emissions and everyone agrees it is crazy.The Brown/Gillard abortion like money-go-round carbon tax affects everyone, but no one knows, especially Labor and the Greens, how it will effect us in years to come. The risks of this complex carbon tax are endless and impossible to calculate because we don't know what the large companies, and small bunisesses will do. Just today we here that Macquarie Generator will have a $580 million carbon tax bill in the first year and they can only pass on a portion of this (increased electricity costs) the balance they have to absorb which wipes out their profits and hence no dividends to the NSW state government (probably what Gillard wants) and hence the NSW state government will need to increase their taxes.Examples like this will pop up for years to come.Mr Abbotts direct action plan, even if more expensive, (but cheap compared to Gillards NBN) has very little effect on the wider community and small business.It is dissappointing to the ABC being so bias and reckless.

Nina:

22 Jul 2011 5:30:24pm

Your ability to manipulate letters into words is somewhat admirable, notwithstanding your inability to string them together in a coherent manner. Referring to collaboration between two political parties as an "abortion" quite well illustrates your intent, though.

ellicat:

Well said Ross. It is good to know there are people with some depth of thought still checking on the ABC journos and bloggers/commenters.

Abbott has been the most successful opposition leader I have ever seen, but that view is skewed by the fact Gillard/Brown/Swan are the worst leaders I have ever seen. I am uncertain how Abbott would perform as a PM but I am certain it will be better than than Gillard/Brown and even more certain the whole package of government ministers will be better than what is there now.

PS Will someone give Combet a glass of water before asking him a question. His nervous tic/swallow thing is very distracting and annoying. Then again after what happened to Swan and his glass over the Wyatt Roy incident it may be a OH&S risk....

Fratelli:

22 Jul 2011 10:00:13pm

"Mr Abbotts direct action plan, even if more expensive, (but cheap compared to Gillards NBN) has very little effect on the wider community and small business."

Maybe. But it will also have stuff all impact on emissions too. I haven't heard a scientist or economist that has yet had a kind thing to say about Abbott's plan. So you're happy to pay for a more expensive scheme that will have no impact emissions, than pay for a less expensive scheme that will? Go figure.

And you think no-one knows how the carbon tax will affect us? But you can confidently say that Abbott's plan will have little or no effect? All the major mining companies support the tax. The AWU supports the tax. Even the coal industry is expecting rapid and significant expansion over the next decade. Gross national income per capita is expected to continue to rise. Not to mention the creation and growth of renewable energy and green jobs. The tax, if anything, will encourage innovation and adaptation (direct action does little in this regard), something small and medium businesses are exceptionally good at. The free market is great like that. Or the 'socialist' market as Abbott calls it now.

And Abbott's plan isn't just a 'bit' more expensive. Even Turnbull said it could cost $18 billion PER YEAR by 2050. And where do you think this money is going to come from? The taxpayer. And when it does, there won't be any compensation like there is for the carbon tax.

gondor:

23 Jul 2011 8:25:09am

the misinformation you speak of regarding the 5% target, if it is true, pales in comparison to the misinformation associated with abot's fear campaign.

you also appear to be forecasting doom and gloom regarding the advent of the carbon tax and its impact on the economy. i thought we got economists to take care of those considerations? and the last i heard - they thought it was good idea. are you an economist, ross?....perhaps you were going to be - but 'aborted' the idea

yes, keep talking ross...

oh, and you mentioned reckless....isn't that the word for messing with the environment....and messing with progressive policies like the carbon tax (that would in the long term create investment and jobs)...

Chocko:

DTS:

23 Jul 2011 7:42:57pm

I'm sorry mate but I have to point out that State Governments (i.e. NSW State Government) cannot tax. State governments rely on GST revenue in the main. I think you may need to brush up on some of this stuff. And yes, it is complicated and that's why we have economists etc and 67% of those surveyed by Aus Fin Rev think it is good economic policy. 85% of top Aus economists surveyed by the Aus Fin Rev think the opposition's policy is no good, no good at all. Sorry

Mark:

22 Jul 2011 4:37:10pm

Good work Annabel. I did hear on ABC news radio an excerpt from channel nine's today show this morning whereby Abbott was finally confronted on a few of his inconsistencies. It is about time he is pursued, as this really is damaging as much to the reputation of Australian journalism as any thing else. If journalists can't demand he consolidate his views into a consistent form, then who else is going to do it.

realist:

22 Jul 2011 4:38:01pm

It really does not matter what Abbott says or does, Gillard does enough damage to brand ALP by herself. If the independents were not locked into supporting her, rather than the governent she would be long gone, for Gillards longevity that was a great piece of negotiating for her, probably by her. Pity it's so bad for the ALP. The next time a government, any government, has to negiotiate with independents, their support will be tied to the party. Very bad mistake on the ALP's part letting that thru

DTS:

james:

22 Jul 2011 4:38:26pm

Thank you Annabel. You are correct in your analysis. It is great to see some scrutiny being applied to Tony Abbott. I too do not know what his position on many things is. Except that he will disagree with whatever the government does.His policies do not stand up to this scrutiny.He is inconsistent and I don't know what his position is on climate change. What is his written down and carefully scripted position?Perhaps he should stick to it whatever it is rather than say one thing to one audience and another thing to another.I cannot trust anything he says and will not vote for him and his hypocrisy.I want leadership and am happy that we have the parliament we have, which we voted for.

Dugong:

Viney Ram:

22 Jul 2011 4:40:08pm

You've hit the nail on the head Annabel..!! Tony Abbott is escaping scrutiny from many mainstream newspapers. The News Corp newspapers do not report any of these anomalies on Tony's part. Tony has different messages for different audiences. He agrees with sceptics like Alan Jones on his radio shows and then recommits to a 5% reduction in other media interviews. I find it amazing that many news media organisations are not holding Tony to account for this. Even when asked to comment on his own contradicting comment, he makes up a laugable excuse and the media just buys it. No tough scrutiny at all! I hope he never becomes the PM of this country otherwise we all will be doomed!

RichoPerth:

22 Jul 2011 4:40:45pm

Economic experts gave us the global financial crisis, subsequent taxpayer bail-out of needy bankers, and the fast approaching round two of economic collapse. Climate experts predicted no more snow in Europe and no more rain in Queensland. Tony Abbott would appear to be stating the painfully obvious by challenging such experts.

redexile:

bb:

Colmery:

22 Jul 2011 4:42:20pm

At last someone has written an article using the word "obeisance". It's a word that does not get used all that much in this world of equals that we live in.

Reverence to individuals is what makes celebrities in the media as much as anywhere else. To survive truly testing times we need to make ourselves dull colourless admirers of cogent and factual argument.

As much as this dump on Abbott cheers my emotions, and is encouragingly supported by facts, it is a political opinion piece. Indeed a very good one.

There was a time when a piece like this would only be in an editorial column. If we forget why that was so then I believe we risk making our political system impotent.

The media genie will not go back into its bottle so the only remedy is to make politics less vulnerable to both Abbotts and Crabbs. At least we need to have the debate.

frank:

22 Jul 2011 4:44:45pm

At long last some truth is being told.I have tried to stay out of this debate, but I have had enough. When we allow the Shock Jock's and biased reporting in the press of facts to determine the outcome for something as important as this we truly are in desperate times. We only have to look at what has happened in the UK to see that the press feels it is the rightfull government, do we really want an alternate PM who is a policy free zone and who makes desicions each day based on what the shock jocks are saying that day to lead this nation on climate change or do we want to make this world a safer place for our children to live in, I know I do, and I woild vote liberal, but not when the present regime is there it is trully frightning........at least Turnbull has some integrity.

Mike:

Ted:

22 Jul 2011 4:45:29pm

What everyone , including ( no doubt conveniently ) Mr Turnbull , forget is that Malcolm's original position was that a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Australia had the same impact on the globe as a tonne emitted in China , ergo Australia should not act before the whole world .

This was his original position in reponse to the Rudd ETS . There is no unfashionable consistencey there . Why are our journalists so lazy?

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 8:31:12pm

Ted, what's wrong with you guys with this obsession about "staying the course". Can you imagine the captain of the Titanic ordering to change course because he spotted an unexpected iceberg, simply to be told by crew and passengers: "What kind of captain are you, Sir? Stay the course...and smash that iceberg into one thousand pieces". Your lot have an uncanning propensity for self-destruction. Changing ideas is not a problem, the real problem is WHY you are changing. And that's exactly where Tony Abbott is in real troubles, he changes all the time for no apparent reason, whilst trying to give the impression of staying the course. With the result that as soon as the spotlight is on him, we are presented with the pathetic spectacle of a shapeless leader slowly drowning in his own contradictions.

EssJay (The Original):

22 Jul 2011 4:46:54pm

It wouldn't be so bad if Abbott was ideologically driven, but he clearly is not.

This week has shown that he has had a different position on climate change just about every day, changing to suit his audience, just like he did over the "over my dead body" Paid Parental Leave Scheme in a brazen attempt to woo female voters. Mind you, he had to renege on his one-month old "no new taxes" pledge to fund it with a Great Big New Tax - two lies in one go!

Abbott is consumed with envy and jealousy of Gillard, pissed off that he was beaten to the top job by a chick, and he is going to make her pay, and he will say and/or do anything and everything to get to the Lodge, regardless of who or what he destroys along the way. He accuses her of "a lie" but has no compunction about peddling the myriad lies that he does each and every day. What a hypocrite!

Abbott is driven by his own political interests, not the nation's. Why else would he change his position on climate change so regularly? He was all for it and supported an ETS under Turnbull (he was recorded saying so) - that is until Nick Minchin flexed his muscle. Tony got a whiff of the leadership and - hey presto - he's suddenly against the ETS - again!

For months Abbott has been peddling his lies and hysteria across the nation and the media has been letting him get away with it.

However, Lisa Wilkinson (of all people!) cornered him this morning about some of his lies and he was most uncomfortable with having to face up to scrutiny.

Could the worm be turning? Could the media actually start putting Abbott's wild lies under scrutiny?

Let's hope so because he should never, ever become PM. That would spell disaster for Australia - far worse than ANY tax!

Boganville:

Ron the original:

Yolanda :

22 Jul 2011 8:25:40pm

Thanks so much Essjay. I don't read too many comments which identify the woman hating agenda that is going on. It is obvious from the sneer that Abbott cannot believe he is not in power and that a woman has got 'his' job. And the vitriol being poured on Gillard by the radio announcers is similar in tone. Alan Jones attacked Gillard for being late to his interview, allows men to phone in and talk about tax payers paying for Gillards tampons - it is ugly ugly ugly. I wonder that any woman will ever be able to stay in power as Premier and if Gillard does lose the next election I can guarantee there won't be another woman for ages.

gondor:

Adam:

22 Jul 2011 4:47:03pm

Nice article. I'm glad at least some portion of the media is holding Tony Abbott to account. I only wish there was greater exposure of his endless backflips and dismissal of science and expert opinion.

kas:

22 Jul 2011 4:47:38pm

About time someone started to point out Abbotts inconsistencies. Sounds like journalists at long last are getting tired of hearing the same lines over and over, all abuse and no substance. Not a sentence uttered on what his policy is, only more lies about Julias' "lies". Just withdraw the microphone and leave Abbott to his slogans, we've heard them all before, just tired of him and his rhetoric. And now he is tripping over his own lies. Give him enough rope and he will hang himself and then we will all start to see the "real" Tony

Fran Barlow:

22 Jul 2011 4:47:52pm

Well said.

I'm hoping for a debate in which Abbott debates with someone who, just to make it fun, is allowed only to answer using remarks that Abbott has made himself, or might make if the mood took him, since he does tend "to exaggerate in the heat of the cut and thrust of political debate".

We could have a similar debate in which Monkton and Bolt got to debate their alter egos. I think there's a TV program in that surely.

harro:

22 Jul 2011 4:48:45pm

I think Annabel has got Abbott nailed here. What I can't understand is why someone who was going to be a Jesuit is so stridently anti-intellectual? No wonder he didn't proceed. There seems to a worldwide return to the dark ages happening these days, an anti-reformation where the lowest common denominator populist line is the loudest - and Abbott is good at that. Reasoned, civil argument is right out of fashion (example Turnbull).We desperately need people who can look beyond the day-to-day and see and enunciate the big picture. A Mandela or a Whitlam perhaps (cue the trolls).Carbon trading is risk management, which is why many business people understand and agree with the concept.Annabel - keep up the comments, this piece was a beauty!

NormanK:

22 Jul 2011 4:50:19pm

Well done Annabel. I thought that I had successfully pre-empted your last line but I was wrong. I would have bet money that it was going to read : Because on climate change in the Coalition, it's not loyal simply to recite the party's formal policy line. Loyalty demands you deliver the policy "as it was laid out in your leader's most recent comments (check the papers before speaking)."

Mark Heydon:

22 Jul 2011 4:51:24pm

There are some great phrases in this piece. I especially liked:"A political campaign that is 100 per cent rhetoric is - to any politician - as a milkshake that is 100 per cent Milo would be to any child"and"he is a papyrus-to-the-node kind of guy"Great stuff, though if it didn't make you laugh, it'd probably make you cry.

One quibble though, you say Mr Abbott "lead[s] a free-market party". I have not seen any evidence of this in the past decade or so.

Wildhorse:

maggietheboxer:

22 Jul 2011 4:55:02pm

At last a real commentary on Tony Abbots performance on the political stage and to think we were just one vote away from still having Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader - what a great pity for Australia that he lost

Karan:

John Robertson:

22 Jul 2011 4:58:55pm

Tony Abbott was right when he said AGW was 'crap'. He should have stuck to his guns.

Malcolm Turnbull is quite wrong when he says the 'science is settled'. It is not. He suggests that financial interest motivates opponents of AGW. For this dedicated denier that is not so. I am a retied engineer and a compulsive volunteer with no involvement whatsoever with the financial, political, commercial or industrial interests. My only concern is for the facts and the integrity of science. It is being grossly abused by the anti-carbon lobby. Their statements are as absurd as they are shameful.

Mr Turnbull well knows the financial markets. A glance at the related publicity shows that many there look to make a killing and vast bonuses as and when carbon trading comes about in quantity. That is one place real financial interest lies. Every cent of gain to financiers from carbon trading will come from the pockets of ordinary citizens.

The other financial interest is with the 'climate change' scientists themselves who have perverted the facts to generate media sensation. That ensures maintenance of the lifestyle which "hot doom" has brought them. Forty years ago "cold doom" was the go and it did the same for its proponents then.

BS Detector:

Not sure where you got your opinions from, but certainly not from the fountain of facts.

Claiming that climate scientists have manipulated their research for extra income and media sensation is completely false and an outrageous slur on climate scientists.

But ironically, both those assertions seem to apply MUCH more correctly to opponents of climate science, since some stand to profit handsomely from continuing to burn fossil fuels, while their media-boys seem to get much more air-time than lack of qualifications ought to allow.

No reputable climatologist was claiming of "cold doom" forty years ago, that was purely a media concoction.

The globe is warming. IPCC is increasingly certain it's because of human activity.

ianfra:

22 Jul 2011 6:49:53pm

I agree that the CSIRO, the UN, NASA, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the science academies of thirty one other countries and all the peer reviewed journals that keep publishing warmist articles are all part of a vast conspiracy. The only problem is that I can't find any evidence of this. Can you help me out?

Wayne:

"Forty years ago "cold doom" was the go and it did the same for its proponents then."

Absolute rubbish.

The only "cold doom" I can recall from 40 years ago was talk of a nuclear winter caused by nuclear war, which thankfully never happened.

The dangers of global warming have been discussed and researched within the scientific community for over a century. In the 1960's there was a consensus on the potential for problems but no consensus on the scale and types of problems. From the 1980's on an overwhelming consensus has been reached within the climate science community to both the types of and catastrophic scale of problems.

Pamela:

22 Jul 2011 8:02:21pm

Thanks John for your honesty. My concerns have always been that there are those who are sweating on an emissions trading scheme and that will be at the expense of ordinary everyday Australians. I am not the brightest star in the sky but I do believe that there are those who will make a killing out of this scheme. I can't imagine that this can be an outcome for a country that is a not one to have the wool pulled. This in my view is a weath distribution Tax disguised as a carbon tax and recently the government referred to it was tax reform.

Sceptic Cynic:

23 Jul 2011 1:00:06pm

John, to you the science is crap and has not been settled and so I'd like to ask some questions of you. Will you ever accept the science? What evidence do you require that you have been unable to find so far? When do you think we will be able to say the debate has ended and it's time to do something (be that taking action or doing diddly-squat).

May I also ask you what your qualifications are that allows you to dismiss the work of thousands of researchers and scientists as "crap". Where can I read your peer-reviewed paper that will perhaps convince me you're correct?

Warren:

Arthur Putey:

22 Jul 2011 5:03:17pm

Brilliant, Annabel. And sublimely written.

I especially enjoyed your absolutely correct suggestion that in describing CO2 as a "weightless" gas, Abbott has shown he has no truck with the discoveries by the likes of Einstein's hero Newton when it comes to gravity. Now that's chutzpah! (Well, it has to be chutzpah, since no modern political leader could be that stupid and ignorant...could they?)

Your best line, for me, though was: "But Mr Abbott's one-man battle against demonstrable logic has entered a new and compelling phase."

My sole quibble is that it was hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the truth about Abbott that you've so wittily laid bare. I'm going to be optimistic and savour the humour. After all, there's two years to the next election, and 51% of even the world's dimmest electorate would be able to see right through this guy by then. Especially when he so clearly represents a return to a pre-science world of evidence-defying blind faith and gods-know-what other medievalisms.

Lenny Bill:

22 Jul 2011 8:42:37pm

Well a solid 59% want him and agree totally with what he is saying. Labor have less seats than the LNP now and I can say they won't have a seat left in WA or QLD after the next election...goodbye Labor for a generation and goodbye to the extreme Greens forever!

Hank Moody:

I think I think:

22 Jul 2011 5:06:42pm

"He disapproves of climate scientists, of Australian economists on the whole, and he has no time at all for the work of Treasury officials, which should make things fairly interesting should the public distaste for Julia Gillard bear its probable fruit two years hence, and install Mr Abbott as their lord and master. Awkward."

So very, very true - every bit factual.

Now, what sort of person will proudly claim they will vote for this man?

RichoPerth:

22 Jul 2011 6:02:30pm

The sort of person who works hard for a living, does a useful job, pays tax, and is deeply resentful of non-productive drones sucking at the taxpayer teat and promoting financial speculation rackets disguised as "planet-saving" carbon trading schemes.

Bryan:

22 Jul 2011 5:10:59pm

annabelle,You have drawn a lot of people out with blow torches for Tony to cop it. I can only add that I will believe Tony Abbott any day of the week before to do the right thing by Austalia than the Labor/ Green/Ind group.That is the the bottom line for the majority of us and please turn those blowtorches off you are causing pollution.

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 8:42:27pm

Brian, you are prepared to trust the future of this country in the hands of Tony Abbott? You have got to be kidding me. I can assure you, mate, if Tony Abbott was a car dealer you would politely listen to his crap for about five minutes and then run away as fast as you can.

Gr8Ape:

JulieA:

22 Jul 2011 5:14:21pm

The real ethical issue for Australian journalists is that while the majority of them, including Annabel, have happily joined Abbott at the table of the 'tea party' he is conducting, his lies, contradictions and obfuscations have become entrenched as truth in a large part of the community.

zacca:

22 Jul 2011 7:27:30pm

Exactly correct - however the events in the UK and now being investigated by the FBI in the USA and hopefully by an enquiry into the media in Australia may give journalists a bit of spunk to report the truth which has been badly lacking.

If you want to remain in the print media it may not be long before News Limited is sold off and to get a job you will need to be ethical.

Joe Blow:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State (in this case read "Abbott") can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

Courtesy of Joseph Goebbels, who was talking about HIS political party. It doesn't just apply to the State but to anyone of influence who has a vested interest in a truth-free zone.

Ted:

22 Jul 2011 6:44:39pm

Forget the Nazi's. Howard, Hill and that South Australian fellow whose name I forget, did a brilliant job prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Every night, on every news, one or all of them used the same words, made the same baseless claims "weapons of mass destruction...etc" and our dumb mongrels belieived them as we seem to have forgotten how to think rationally -if we ever knew. .Guess it's happening again...

ellicat:

Captain Jack:

22 Jul 2011 5:20:38pm

AGW is a scam and most know it.Tony Abbott is a man and there are few left in Labor.None in the green/reds.I will take my chances with Abbott.I cannot stand how P' weak this country has become under Rudd/Gillard.

Alpo:

22 Jul 2011 9:00:04pm

Captain, wake up! When a true leader like the US president Obama can be made to look like a moron, and a true moron like Geroge W. Bush can be made to look like a hero and man of steel, we know that the rules of the game have changed dramatically. Tony Abbott is no leader for these modern and complex times, he has been fabricated as a leader with the help of the media. It will take the same media two microseconds to turn Tony Abbott into a clown...the transformation may be just about to happen.... wait and see.

bozo:

22 Jul 2011 5:23:00pm

It's not only Abbott, who is a self confessed economic vacuum, it's his economic backups Hockey and Robb. At least Gillard Swan Wong and Shorten can talk with some authority on the economy, I have not heard Abbott say one sensible word on it. Witnesss his so called budget reply which he fudged with histrionic rhetoric and no detail. I hold no great admiration for the present government but fear even more the alternative.

Hermit:

JVL:

23 Jul 2011 12:55:27pm

As do I. I often told family and friends on the impending disaster that will befall upon us all should Tony Abbott be elected as the Prime Minister. I do not support all of of PM Julia Gillard's policies. However Tony Abbott's approach truly frightens me.

Simon Black:

23 Jul 2011 11:22:31pm

You are talking like a real 'bozo'. Swan would be the most incompetent treasurer ever. Shorten is a joke. Hockey is not much better either. However, Andrew Rob has a potential to be one of the great Australian treasurers. Coalition has a record of always providing better economic manegement.

toeknee:

peter:

22 Jul 2011 5:29:31pm

Perhaps all the Prime Minister has to do is wait until Abbott buries himself in his own b-s. The saying give him enough rope comes to mind. What the other members of the coalition (excluding the usual suspects) can be thinking by backing his approach is beyond belief.Thanks Anabel for your succintuosity!

gizmo jones:

22 Jul 2011 5:33:20pm

Hey Hermit,

Who are all these scientists who aren't doing any science? I guess you mean they aren't doing the science that supports your view on warming (supposing you have one, to which you're perfectly entitled.) Abbott's hold on public opinion is a mystery to me. Apart from sniffing at the trouser cuffs of public opinion, endlessly repeating three or four variations on the concept "tax" and jeering at knowledgeable people, what's he offering? Really? I'd be happy for any of his supporters to tell me - I'm missing it badly.

I'd like to ask Abbott this: if next week's poll showed that Australians favoured a levy on pollution to enable us to power up renewables, would you switch with the rest of us? If "no", would that make you a man of courage and principle, willing to sacrifice your career for what you know to be right? Because that's what your opponent is doing. If "yes", would it make you an opportunistic weathercock? I know, and surely every other Blind Freddie can see, that you're following, not leading, on this. I also know you wouldn't answer, because it's a "hypothetical question", every craven demagogue's ultimate fallback position. But ask yourself, would I have the balls? Of course you wouldn't. Julia Gillard's twice the man you are.

What do you think, deep down, Abbott's answer would be, Billy? Anyone? Can you see him saying "I'll forgo the prime ministership because I believe so strongly in carbon capture"? And why doesn't he have to respond to Treasury's modelling, which tells him he's wrong? Do you think he'd ignore it so completely if it backed him up? I know he wouldn't, and so do you; he'd be waving it in our faces at every fruit shop and coal mine in the land.

Great piece, Annabel. Keep it up. Stick it, not to Abbott in particular, but to every self-seeking grub who'd bury the truth under their naked ambition.

Billy Bob Hall:

22 Jul 2011 7:43:48pm

Very perplexing isn't it gizmo ! :-)On your hypothetical question, well no. You still don't understand the debate.Some of us think both the ALP's carbon (dioxide) tax nonsense and the Coalition 'direct Action plan' are both worthless. (Although arguably it is easier to switch off the 'direct action' idea when good sense finally prevails.)Bin both of them I say. Straight away. 'Do not pass go'. Non-solutions to a 'non-problem'. It is time to go on to worrying about more important things.

Mark N:

Mitor the Bold:

22 Jul 2011 5:36:57pm

Well Annabel, as a member of the media can you explain why journalists and news outlets are little more than megaphones for his messages rather than fact-aware interrogators? I wouldn't know any of Abbott's messages if it weren't for the parrot-like repetition of them by a panting media.

schtaeve:

aiden:

23 Jul 2011 6:12:04pm

It's very simple, Gillard is the PM, it's up to her and the Government to Govern, Abbott is in Opposition and isn't likely to be PM until an election so it's her problem not his!The real problem is that Julia is incapable of doing her job because she's turned every one off to her message! No one is listening and a few people on blogs like this that are armchair climate change experts aren't going to change anything!People want straight answers they can understand and generally they get them from Abbott where Gillard doesn't know how to give a straight answer!

Mark N:

Pamela:

22 Jul 2011 5:39:12pm

Its all about carbon trading Malcom. I bet you are rubbing your sweaty little hands together at the expense of the working class. I didn't vote for a wealth distribution tax or as the ALP call it a carbon tax and a few times lately Julia has refered to it as Tax reform. Until we have our right to democracy I hope that the rage is maintained.

Ribbit:

22 Jul 2011 5:44:21pm

Popularity as expressed in opinion polls are skewed by the forced choice of the respondents. We have to vote so who do you choose? Tony's popularity is quite simple. Julia is amorphous, clearly risen passed the rank of her capability to influence labor leadership, but tied to an agenda of the independents and the greens. Tony also is amorphous, but with talk-show host superficiality and no responsibility for what he says or does as long as it increases his ranking in the polls.

Love your wit Annabelle. Keep it up. Plenty of fodder to work with here.

Bother:

22 Jul 2011 5:45:43pm

No one should take Tony Abbott's statements seriously, as even he doesn't. Remember him saying so on the ABC? In hindsight, this might be clever, as he can say any old nonsense and when pulled up can say 'well, it isn't my fault if people believe me, I warned them.'

And there is plenty of dissembling, contradictions, lies, stunts and bluster on offer. Two blatant contradictions of policy in a couple of days. $80 million plebiscite stunts that mean nothing. Specific and deliberate fabrications like a 6.5c a litre increase on petrol.

Unbelievably, it is actually believed. Perhaps he is just the recipient of the mob hysteria about Labor, which is extended to believing in their opponents as saviours. Strange psychology...

So far the pro-Abbott comments support Crabb's contention about being at odds with facts:

Parroting of glib untrue lines of simple words.

Pretending that economics as a group don't greatly prefer the Labor approach as superior economics.

Questioning specialists ('Precious little science being done'? That is either sheer idiocy or a dissembling semantic trick about what 'science' is. The latter I know well as I have a PhD in science, albeit not in climatology etc.)

Sadly, we might get Abbott as PM and then as correctly pointed out things will be different for him as he has to deal with people, take an interest in economics or something other than fighting and perhaps even deliver on policies, including a sketchy and poorly thought out $10.5 billion taxpayer-gouged carbon pricing exercise.

Paul W :

With the advent of the Tea Party style of campaigning fresh from the USA he has donned his "Mad Hat" for a pure spin led run to power!

Let no fact stand in his way!

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party will prevail!

Abbott is a man of his words and since he has at different times taken just about all stances on every issue with all most all words he can be justified at least by News Limited in which ever way he goes.

Abbott stands for everything and for nothing as appropriate at any point in every argument.

The guiding principle is to take the direction that will win.

The Mad Hatter will prevail and heaven help anyone or any idea or principle that might look like being too rigid not to be dispensed with.

Kevin Cobley:

Tony Brady:

It takes a short internet search to find equally qualified and peer reviewed climate scientists who agree with global warming BUT disagree to the extent it is cause by anthropogenic influences.

NASA among others have been researching the influence of Cosmic Ray Flux on global warming, but we hear nothing of this despite the scientific concensus that global warming is caused by a number of factors.

Many scientists believe in the Ghia principle that Earth is a self correcting biological entity which will correct itself through natural processes, BUT we hear nothing of this despite it being peer reviewed and accepted science.

I am sorry to those who believe the science is settled IT'S NOT.

It is just that to oppose those screaming the horrors of global warming is tantamount to liking pedophiles.

The issue is not a black and white issue with only two sides it is a complex issue in which you can find scientific evidence, most peer reviewed, to support all sides. Most peer reviews come from scientists in the same circles so it is of litte use and much of it is self reviewed within the same agencies or academic institutions.

What we should ALL be concerned with is the vast amount of grant money being paid to academics to produce all these studies, when we should be simply looking at how to adapt ourselves to the changing environment.

For every negative global warmists present there is an opportunity as well.

Boiling Frog:

22 Jul 2011 6:14:06pm

Good to see the Honorable (sic) member for Lalor singing the praises of the Honorable member for Wentworth. Lets hope she also pays him as much attention when he gives the government advice on the NBN. Not holding my breath.

SkipAdyDooDa:

22 Jul 2011 6:17:02pm

Annabelle, you are an absolute gem. I spent many years rolling around in laughter, bathing in the sunlight drawn by the pen of the late and great Matt Price. I read him religiously and like many, I miss him greatly. I now read you and have watched your career , along with the quality of your writing, rise and rise.

You hit the nail on the head almost every time and you most definitely hit the nail on the head this my lovely.

The sooner the country wakes up to this shallow excuse for an Opposition Leader the better. He is known as " Mr Negative " around this house. I mean, where are the alternative policies from the Liberal Party ?.

Love your work, Abbott ignoring himself. Keep it up. Your colleague Matt , would be proud of you. It's taken me 54 years to make an Internet Comment like this and I suddenly feel liberated.

Ture Sjolander:

Stunts and Slogans :

22 Jul 2011 6:25:34pm

Almost all the commentators think Tony Abbott is a shoo-in as Prime Minister at the next election.

If that's the case, everyone - public and media - have to stop letting him get away with playing opposition leader and start treating him as someone who is more than likely to be our next Prime Minister.

This means putting him to as much hard questioning as Julia Gillard. That has not been happening up to now.

Can Australia afford to have a Prime Minister elected by default?

Maybe Annabel's day off sick helped to clear her mind and realise that she and her colleagues need to ask the hard questions of all political leaders who aspire to lead this country, not just the woman!

Trevor:

22 Jul 2011 6:28:00pm

Abbott is very predictable. He is against everthing except he becoming PM. He is Billy Sneddon revisited. ' We didn't lose the election, we just didn't get enough votes' Thank goodness for Turnbull, he is following the party line, but at least we know where he stands.

Crikey:

22 Jul 2011 6:32:31pm

Hermit commented

*Annabel published 18 articles in a row adverse to the opposition and if memory serves me correctly Abbott in particular. To her credit she acknowledged the fact and said that readers could expect balance over the political cycle. *

I see here the "Balance" theory where each commentator must criticise each side equally. As long as this article is a factual account of TA's contortions why should Annabel be required to adversely comment on the governments policy. As an example if Joseph Stalin was opposition leader should he be given "balanced coverage" of his send everyone to the gulags policy? Enough of the balance BS let's just keep demanding truth and ethics in reporting.

BruceT:

Tony B:

Its about time we're starting to read things in the media that have confirmed what many people have been saying all along..

Abbott is like an Aussie Idol winner. His handlers tell him what to say, what flouro vest to wear today and then grab the big hook to drag him on stage at the strategically allocated time.

At this very point in time in the universe, Abbott is sitting on the crest of a negative propaganda wave but it wont take long before people start to see right through him. But like the Aus Idol, he runs the risk of being no more than a one hit wonder and finding himself performing at morning melodies at the local pokies venue.

I think one of two things are likely to happen...

The Carbon Price will pass through parliament, Abbott has no other issues to dance around and will be looked upon as a failure. Turnbull will challenge for the leadership. If this does happen, I think Gillard is really in trouble as there are Labor voters who like him.

OR......

The Carbon Price will pass through parliament. Turnbull has a gut full of politics and as one last moral act, he crosses the floor to secure the numbers and pass the tax. Cops it on the chin and quits politics. This option would be so cool :))

tonyM:

22 Jul 2011 6:47:43pm

Which science does Turnbull wish us to pursue:Michael L Mann et al's recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

".......The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).

One should note that in effect the AGW alarmism has been relegated to mere hypothesis here!

ORMichael E. Mann who gave us the infamous hockey stick where it was almost certain we would be doomed.

Or does he want us to stick to the vague science that gave us the IPCC with its hockey sticks hide-the -decline, climategate, galaciergate. Strange the other countries like China and India don't have faith and pursue their own science. Neither does Canada, Japan or the U.S. follow the western sorority climate club.

Perhaps Turnbull ought stick to NBN or banking given that the science is nowhere near settled. He seems to be in the same politicised position on AGW as as posited for closed climate community in the U.S. House Committee findings

..............Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

Muzz:

Damo:

22 Jul 2011 6:52:37pm

About time you wote an article with real substance Annabel, pointing out the lack of substance and expertise underpining on the basis of Abbotts statements rather than merely repeating them and commenting on how they well or not they've been recieved. If he wasn't the leader of a major party his tag lines would be ignored because of the lack of underpinning substance and treated with disdain as was many of Pauline Hansons ideas. Actually they are so similiar in that they connect to fears but not reality. Please can there be more serious articles like this put out their. Currently I'm embarrassed that Australia would want a George Dubya equivalent in power.

Ted:

22 Jul 2011 6:54:12pm

First, love your writing Ananbel.But, I am in a terrible conundrum. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in the man-caused bit, but acknowledge climate change as a reality - it always is!There is too much cosy nudge-nudge in the scientific community, and loss of funds if you disagree with the political classes.We pollute and waste too many resources. We are gut-busting to sell Australia's resources yesterday to sate fat "entrepreneurs".I'm happy with the current government's proposals to tax pollution (Hey Tony, they ARE the governement, sorry mate, you lost, boo hoo)Seems I've got to support the government on this one, Abbott has a chronic case of dysrationalia, maybe his all-seeing, all knowing man in the sky will bring him through.

JThereseBass:

22 Jul 2011 6:56:43pm

THANK YOU Annabel! At last you've called T Abbott out on being as ridiculous as he is. Now if you would just arrange to have this published on front pages of Herald Sun and Telegraph that would be a good job REALLY well done

mdfe:

22 Jul 2011 6:58:56pm

Hear Hear Annabel'

Facts have shown that Tony Abbott has been wrong about nearly every claim he has made- and his unprincipled and reckless scare campaign loses more and more credibility. I don't know if I am more disappointed at the new low Abbott has given to politics OR the fact that most people are following him like the Pied Piper!

In any case I was worried there for awhile that you also Annabel was blindly following along behind Abbott spell, good for yo to wake up out of the trance .

Not Tony Abbott:

Jack McBride:

22 Jul 2011 7:13:01pm

...truth is, he's doing his job. He's earning his pay. He's disrupted a lacklustre government, that had lost it's way, and has yet to buy a map, or ask for directions. He has said no to almost everything, yet 150 pieces of legislation get passed. He's the big bad wolf, he should come up against a brick house soon, well, he would if Labor would stop the public dithering, stop mentioning Abbott every fourth word, you don't hear coca cola mention pepsi ever, and start doing instead of talking. Best moment of Gillard's tenure at the top thus far...when she told the press to stop writing crap...of course it was also incredibly ironic...but she looked "real" for a brief shining moment...now, even Queensland Labor is making noise about more compensation to offset the devaluation of the states coal fired power plants. So the big polluters will be compensating the states as well, to compensate the big polluters from the ravages of the policy...how does Gillard combat this next angle of attack from Abbott?...I wait with bated breath...

austie333:

22 Jul 2011 7:29:41pm

Thankyou for your article. This is not about the Liberal party or the Labour party, it is about reporting accurately the public debate on real issues that are so important for Australia. It is not in one sense, even about whether climate change is real, it is about a legitemate and fair dinkum debate on such issues that are meant to find out as best we can in an imperfect world, what we need to be aware of and what we need to do about it.

In trouble:

22 Jul 2011 7:30:17pm

This is more serious than many would like to believe the combination of an incompetent federal Government and an opposition that can't present a united front and therefore cannot govern, leaves Australia in more trouble politically and financially than at any other time in our history. It's no wonder our economy is sputtering with much worse to come.

petrina:

22 Jul 2011 8:59:10pm

Chipinga and others here have obviously swallowed all the lines of no substance, along with so many out there thinking totally inside Abbott's very small box. The only Abbott fact is that because he is so marvellously adept at opposing everything, as Leader of the Opposition he should stay.

mick:

22 Jul 2011 9:13:15pm

who would have thought the boats wouldnt stop, who would have thought the budget would blow out, and who would have thought that NBN would cost us $200 per month plus 40Bill of our tax. Tony has every reason not to believe or trust the ALP, govt advisors including treasury and the legions of academics lining up for climate change grants/research projects. Tony has every reason to treat them with indifference at this stage. As you say we have another 2 years before we need to worry too much about Tony. It still is and should be only about the ALP at only months from the last election.The media experts should Focus its attention on the Govt who are effecting our lives today and seemingly trashing the country like bogans in a rental property.

Lord Kelvin:

Hubris:

22 Jul 2011 9:34:35pm

Right on Mitor.

I don't know what the unis are pushing out these days, but journalism over the past decade seems to have become nothing more than an extension of high-school "who said what" and "who said what in return". It's like all the high school pecking order chattering rumour mongerers have all graduated and become journalists?!

I don't care about what Abbot or Julia are like as people. I don't care what they have to say about each other. I do care about the policies they plan to bring in, and I want my media to present their policies clearly and point out any inconsistencies or questionable facts.

Verity:

22 Jul 2011 9:37:06pm

You have to admire Malcolm Turnbull and his ability to speak what he knows to be the truth, especially as the rest of the Liberal Opposition have been "dumbed down" by Tony Abbott and cannot speak to anybody.

It is a shame Malcolm Turnbull joined the Liberal Party, he has too much talent and appeal for that group. If you look at the front bench of the Opposition there is not one bright light in that lot. Hockey cannot string two words together which make sense, Robb cannot add up, Bishop can only cat scratch and Abbott himself appears to be more and more out of step with the real world every day.

I don't think Turnbull will ever be given the chance to be leader again and that is such a shame. The "in the know" Liberals think they are doing well with the electorate but its a different thing to answer polling questions than to vote in private in the ballot box.

Tony Abbott will never become leader of Australia even if John Howard comes out and "supports" him like he did last week. Howard should stay right out of things because the electors remember him very well and will not make the same mistake twice. Tony Abbott has changed his position on climate change and emissions trading scheme more times than he has changed his budgie smugglers.

No sir, I admire Malcolm Turnbull and I hope he speaks out more and more often about how some more of the Opposition feel about climate change.

Jim:

22 Jul 2011 9:42:29pm

On Malcom Turnbull FaceBook some are demanding he move to the Labor aPrty for exactly the reasons you say, repeating the Liberal Party Policy. The fact they think his party faithful speech was treason shows how misleading Tony Abbot is.

willo:

sad day:

22 Jul 2011 9:52:33pm

Mr TA is a joke. When I first set eyes on him I thought he seems all right. He has no policy but his face looks honest. Now the more I read his commentaries I realise how hollow they are. After long deliberation I noticed our PM seems to have guts, she is putting up with a lot of negative verbal abuse, but is rising above it. That is someone with integrity and belief in justice. Good on you PM keep it up and like they say water over a ducks back. Will vote for you next time.

Redders:

Herbert:

22 Jul 2011 10:02:12pm

Annabel,Luckily,The ultimate question for the Australian people is whether a carbon tax and ETS is good public policy for this country.When your columns on one side and Andrew Bolt's on the other are put aside, people will decide this at the ballot box.It is curious that Professor Garnaut in his various reviews says nothing about Britain or its Climate Change Act 2008.Were he to do so, it would be clearer to the Australian public that the policy advocated by our government has already failed in Britain.Now the UK is driving its citizens into "fuel poverty"(4.3 million families up from 2 million in 2004,on the government's own figures) in a senseless and futile quest for base load renewables.May I point out that our Treasury's modelling is a waste of space as Henry Ergas demonstrates in today's Australian,with preposterous assumptions of overseas adoption of international carbon trading by 2016.Likewise Garnaut in his assumption of significant international action to abandon fossil fuels. The Gillard Government proposals are rubbish proposing a "magic pudding " ETS where we cheat by importing carbon offsets.Al Gore tried this nonsense when challenged over his residential mansion's gross emissions.Talk about paying someone in Africa to starve while we continue with gorging ourselves!

Lucy:

22 Jul 2011 10:10:56pm

Tony Abbott says that it is difficult to measure CO2 because it is a colourless, odourless, weightless gas.

I wonder if Tony Abbott would say that nitrous oxide, N2O, is another colourless, slightly sweet smelling, "weightless" gas, and therefore difficult to measure. N2O is called "laughing gas" and used, particularly in dentistry as an anaesthetic.

I hope, for the sake of his patients, that Tony Abbott's dentist father was able to measure successfully the concentrations of N2O in the anaesthetics he administered. Too much - RIP. Too little - Ouch!

Just for the record, carbon dioxide, CO2, is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

Roj:

22 Jul 2011 10:12:40pm

Or maybe he just doesn't believe a lot of the information coming out. And frankly, who does? Some of it may be correct but it's too late and too hard to to begin to rationalize what's true and what's spin. What we all know is - energy now costs an unreasonable amount more than it did 4-5 years ago and no-one seems interested .....well except every home and business owner in Australia. Just no reporters - maybe it's too hard or they are too lazy.

Casey:

D J SCHWAN:

22 Jul 2011 10:20:58pm

This is quite terrifying reading when one considers that this Abbott character wants to be PM,the leader of this country.A man who is so far removed from reality,who invents stories to fit his daily needs and who will literally say anything to get elected...What has become of politics and politicians in Australia? There is a good chance of this fool Abbott becoming Prime Minister in a few years! He has managed to convince many of the simple minded conservartive types that he can actually lead the way! With multi-billion dollar holes in his budget estimates,so many lies told that even he cannot recall what he has and has not said,hates economists,hates treasury,prefers bible stories to science and people are prepared to vote for this man! The coalition is supposed to provide us with a viable alternative to Labor but instead they choose this bloke to lead them,make it up as they go along and have nothing real to offer when and if they win! They treat politics as their god-given right,as a joke and there are fools out there who fall for it.We are doomed! Honestly,the coalition should be disbanded.They fail on all levels to provide us with a second option and if they cannot do that they do not deserve to exist.Outr two party system can try to manage with just Labor and the Greens I suppose, but really, the conservatives owe it to their supporters to at least try to be real.I think their problem is that Abbott is the bottom of their leadership-choice barrel.There is nobody lower than him,no capable replacement has ever been offered!Is it time to destroy this brand of political fools? It seems so...

Good Guy:

22 Jul 2011 10:23:34pm

Makes me laugh after reading all the comments. Start picking on Tony when Julia can't function. Forget all about the incompetency of Julia Gillard. Remember Tony Abbott is not the PM and He isw doing excellent in his role as an Opposition Leader. Hoe the Labor mob jumps on a very minor opportunity to attack Tony knowing that this is their last chance.

Teresa:

22 Jul 2011 10:31:52pm

Thank you Annabel!

I always look forward to reading your perceptive wit. You've truly nailed it this time, and like many others here, I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. The thought that some people actually take Abbott seriously (not just on climate change but on any given issue) and believe that he could honestly make a good prime minister scares the **** out of me. With Abbott at the helm I get strange visions of Australia becoming the laughing stock of the world a' la the US under George Dubya.

Thank you for exposing Abbott for the opportunist and deceiver that he is.

Billy:

22 Jul 2011 10:41:57pm

The media appears to have forgotted Tony has publically admitted his press releases/verbal answers, which are not being read from a prepared written statement, cannot be relied upon as being truthful. Also, if he does read from a prepared statement he, being a mature person can (if circumstances change) change his position. Why doesn't he Julia a fair go. Has he effectly told the Australian public he is a liar?

nicko32:

hamilton:

22 Jul 2011 10:53:59pm

As a voter who supports neither major party this article seems to be spot on. What frightens me is how anybody, even the most ardent Liberal supporter, could ever contemplate voting for this dangerous fool of a man. A comment I heard many years ago of the Australian electorate appears to be true "... if you took a monkey and a crocodile and named them Liberal and Labour people would vote for them..." To say I think we've got the monkey is an insult to monkeys.

Barnesy:

Even many right wing commentators admit his is simply playing political games in order to win his party government. He is a career politician, he has never done anything else.

Gillard has excellent understanding of her party's policies and is running a tight ship. People may doubt her convictions etc. but at least she listens to reason and forms constructive policies based on fact, which is more than Abbott can do.

De_rigueur :

22 Jul 2011 11:19:31pm

Very funny this: "After a long period of ignoring expert opinion where it does not mesh with his own, the Opposition Leader has taken the ambitious next step, and spent this week ignoring himself". Thanks for making me laugh.

IA:

nac:

23 Jul 2011 8:02:37am

as a true greenie ie love nature but not of the green party type i would like the evidence of benefit explained on a regular basis: "what are the facts as we understand at present" on warming, and what do we do about it or should we?

unfortunately we need a neutral media outlet to organise, reading this article and others information from ABC i believe the ABC is too biased though they may be right,

jim heath:

Anthony:

23 Jul 2011 8:32:20am

Unfortunately Annabelle you fail to mention that Abbott is on the side of the majority of Australians. Your attempts to pigeon hole him as antiquated and not listening to economists and 'climate scientists' are flawed. Ordinary Australians know after listening for long enough that economists are out of touch with the real world, as much as 'climate scientists' are out of touch with observations.

JG:

Doc:

23 Jul 2011 8:51:55am

Bravo Annabel! To continue with the ballooning analogy: you have nailed Abbott's sphericals to the warming terra firma! You are one of the few journalists to really do so - the Murdoch press are obsessed with reporting every bit of Abbott's contradictory vitriol as if it were indisputable fact - and without a scintilla of challenge to it. Note too Abbott's most recent claim that Gillard was attempting to intimidate the media - as if the NOTW scandal in the UK had never happened. It'd be a joke if it weren't true and it didn't stop Abbott from using it to go Gillard to score another cheap political point. That's the whole substance of Tony's relentless campaign - pretty naked political ambition. He can see the Lodge. He can smell it. Taste it. Soooo close - he was a heartbeat away. Bugger waiting two years, he can make it now, by any and every means. The ETS has been a Godsend to him. His mighty powers of demagoguery will play on ignorance, instil fear and loathing throughout the land and get him in the Lodge! Pity more journos like Annabel aren't serving it up to him with a shovel. But hey folks - its Tony we're talking about. Just wait and he will not just keep contradicting himself - he will loose it there will be a real meltdown. The tight control he has shown over himself since the election (and for the longest period in his political life) will go. It'll be another Mark Reilly moment but this time the Abbott dog will slip the leash and attack! Just you wait and see...

Either that or he'll be in the Lodge by this Christmas (or next) and God help us all.

BlaBlaBla:

23 Jul 2011 8:55:34am

It is the function of the opposition to oppose the government! That is the cornerstone of the political system here. So well done Tony, you are doing a good job, regardless what this Labor Newsletter mumbles. Annabel, democracy is a hard concept to swallow when you are in the minority, hey!

Glenn Sargent:

23 Jul 2011 9:01:26am

Seems all our polies have gone nuts. If you accept the global warming science, then a global response is required to save Australia from the consequences. Labour, Libs and Greens are betting that the rest of the world will act to reduce carbon emissions and save Australia from the consequences of global warming. All the facts point to this not occurring in the decades to come. The US is broke, any higher taxes there will be used repay debt. China (the smartest government on the planet) may be spending the most on renewable energy, but it is also spending the most on coal fired energy, and nuclear energy as well. China has the largest national coal reserves on the planet, and also the highest population. Hence it has low coal reserves per capita, it will run out of coal this century. China could be burning cleaner gas if it wanted, Russia has been trying to sell the Chinese gas for years, via a new pipe line into China. China keeps refusing! China understands three things very well, strategic energy security, (no to Russian gas, and yes the acquisition of coal and oil resources wherever they can buy them), sustainability (started with the one child policy decades ago), and lastly, the ruling party understands the cat is out of the bag and that they must continue to raise the standard of living of its citizens if its long term hold on power is to be maintained. None of there promises, actions, or policies are really to do with climate change.Europe and the UK is now relying on gas piped from Russia, energy security is the primary driver for their policies as well. The UK's ambitious new reduction targets are a joke. Industrial emissions are already 69% less than there 1990 benchmark! There 2020 and nearly there 2027 targets have already been met, North Sea gas peaked in 2000 and has been in decline ever since. India is following in the footsteps of China but with a 20 year lag, expect more of the same from India. Oh and let's not forget the praised NZ ETS. NZ's biggest export industry is agriculture and its exempt from the scheme, even before the introduction of their ETS over 80% of all power was produced by renewables (Hydro and Geothermal). The point is all these nations are acting out of self interest, and this is unlikely to change. The facts are in, actions speak louder than words, emissions are are going to increase for decades to come, warming is inevitable, and Australia is betting its whole future on other nations saving our bacon. The Greens and Labour are right on one point, we need to act now on climate change, but we need to act on adaption policies not mitigation policies! The carbon tax would be fine if it were to be spent on adaption.

Kosuzu:

23 Jul 2011 9:59:27am

I'll bet there is not one lefty in here that would endorse an inquiry into the ABC as rigorous as the one they propose for Murdoch and News Ltd for bias even though 90%+ articles are critical of the coalition and or Tony Abbott.What a bunch of Hippocrates!!!!!!

Graeme Henderson:

23 Jul 2011 10:00:12am

What does it say about the people who support about on his crusade to save the coal industry. When food becomes short all those who stood in the way of dealing with Climate Change will happily stand aside and starve to death because they were wrong and those who tried to save the situation will be allowed the limited food resourses. Ha ha, Abbott and his supporters are only interested in short term profits for themselves and their masters. Before I finish Labor is not much better, certainly it is hard to destinguish between Tony Abbott and Marting Ferguson on these matters. Voters beware.

robotichorse:

23 Jul 2011 10:01:27am

tony abbott was not a senior shadow minister . He needed to fully support his ladder. now, he is a opposite ladder. he has to set the direction . it is quite different. Obma supported ETS before election. he also change his mind

Bob_WA:

CL:

23 Jul 2011 10:12:35am

Annabelle is spot on. Currently Tony Abbot is as popular as Hitler was in pre-war Germany, but that does not make him right, nor pay compliment to the current Australian collective intelligence, that has been brainwashed by an effective "back pocket" fear campaign....it's embarrassing. A hung Parliament with the current Coalition policies & greens would have been interesting, but I suspect a voting backlash against the greens is coming & deservingly so.Bring some intelligence back into the Coalition via Malcolm Turnbull, and we might see some bi-partisan achievements for Australia as a Nation, rather than just "broken record" bleatings of the conservative lunatic fringe.

SB of Perth:

23 Jul 2011 10:17:35am

Great article!

Given the fact that there is bipartisan support for a 5% reduction there should be more non-political discussion on the merits of both policies. Why not a Q & A program with two economists from each side debating the merits of Carbon Pricing and Direct Action. In this however is the presumption that they can find two economists that support Direct Action.

GrumpyOldMan:

23 Jul 2011 10:20:05am

Allow me to predict that the type of hate and fear filled rhetoric of fanatical right-wing extremists will be found to have motivated the horrendous Oslo bombings and mass murder of Labour Party youth.

Although these events may well have had a largely Norwegian flavour, we cannot avoid questions about the possible impact of fanatical right-wing rhetoric in Australia. This question has particular significance at the moment because of the involvement of right-wing shock jocks and News Limited hacks of using hate, fear, intolerance and blatant disrespect to inflame public opinion against the Gillard government and the science behind AGW, and in favour of the Opposition led by perhaps the cleverest, and most unprincipled political opportunist since the McCarthy era in the USA, or the 'reds under the beds' campaigns in the 1950s, or the more recent 'children overboard' scandal.

Let us all take this opportunity to examine our own consciences, and commit to eradicating the destructive emotions of hate and fear from our national psyche, and return to a time when knowledge, understanding, compassion and a sense of fairness and justice were respected. And an important step towards this goal would be a national inquiry into the ethics of political reporting in this country, particularly within the Murdock empire.

Michelle:

23 Jul 2011 10:22:55am

How do I give this article a gold star? An excellent piece of commentary. Well written, entertaining, and true. I have been thoroughly annoyed by Tony Abbott's campaign of negativity and nonsense and this article articulates everything I could have wished to say on the matter. Well done Annabel and thank you.

Hellfire:

23 Jul 2011 10:23:22am

The way I read it Abbott does not deny Climate Change or the science associated with it. He like any other thinking person understands that Australia adopting a carbon tax will disadvantage Australia and not do anything towards solving the Climate Change problem especially while China will in spite of anything it does towards minimising emmissions actually will sustantially increase carbon emmissions and the rest of the world does mostly nothing. I also realise that even if we are able to eliminate all man-made carbon emmissions it will have little to no effect on the net amount of carbon emmissions in the atmosphere. So Tony Abbott has the correct approach for me.

harry :

Bob:

23 Jul 2011 10:27:24am

Dear all; The sky is about falling down and the earth will soon be disappear if we don't do anything now to reduced CO2!!!. Can the politicians put down the controversial debate of CO2, and refocus on our more urgent matters, eg, education, health and cost of living for voters. If the Government needs a great tax to fix the black hole in the budget bottom-line due to the wast of previous policy mistake, eg, school hall, and blow out of NBN, then I will vote for whoever politician has the gut to tell us.

Johnno:

23 Jul 2011 12:05:01pm

Well said Annabell. Now the words from our PM were to journalists were " Don't write crap - it can't be that hard "If all journalists stopped writing crap and wrote the facts people may realise that T Abbott is crap himself. He should be scrutinised to the fullest by all journo's. Let's here more from you Annabell. Love your honesty.

Qup:

Stafford:

23 Jul 2011 12:36:56pm

Comedy 001. How to construct a joke.

Carefully build a mental picture so the audience forms an image that is totally unrelated to the image you want them to end up with.Then, with the very last word, shatter that image by introducing an obvious absurdity.

Maddi:

23 Jul 2011 12:46:19pm

Isn't the abbott missing the point about the futility of attempting to reduce our carbon footprint in the future. It mightn't make a big difference to the global figures if we try to go into alternate energy generation but at least we will have reduced the amount of carbon emitted by ourselves - wouldn't the total amount of pollution or whatever be reduced by the amount we stop producing over time? And wouldn't our per capita pollution level be reduced too. Our total emissions might not reduce by much from what they are now but over 20 years or so Australian society and production will have grown some.

I can't understand how he can mislead so many people about this. We've made a huge mess of things in this country in the cities and rural areas and have only been saved recently by rain breaking the drought except for the floods - but then why were towns built in flood prone urban areas and valleys? excusa me please explain

emma:

23 Jul 2011 12:54:27pm

I love this article - yes, I'm a Liberal voter for the electorate of Moore - a very safe Liberal seat since late 90's - and no, I am not Tony Abbott's number one fan, but I do enjoy the comedy of his political objectives. I'll never forget in my year 12 Politics and Law class in 2008 we had a political analyst come in and gave us a snippet of what she could for see in the next two elections: Labor will win and then Malcolm Turnbull will wait until people distrust the current Liberal leader then swoop out from underneath to take top spot...*fingers crossed* hope she was right.

k. walker:

23 Jul 2011 1:03:31pm

All the comments on the Tony Abbott affair, highlights the complete lack of individual's ability, or willingness to do some honest analysis of our Party Political system, such as, ask ourselves "why is it that neither of the two political parties have failed dismally, when in "Office" to have brought monetary stability to our daily lives. Why, despite the promises of both "sides" of politics, we Australians continue to struggle in this inextricable mire of financial and personal uncertainty. Yet the only "THING" in the minds of, it seems, a large segment of the population carry on following this shallow mind set of producing nothing bet anti Party abuse and/or verbal vitriol, such as the comments we see in these comments columns. Can we, for once in our lives, rise above this hollow mind set, and try to determine the cause of our hopeless political dilemma. I can not believe that personal attacks on individuals, can ever hope to overcome our position on this or any other subject of importance. One thing though, in my mind, is how can any thinking person take seriously, Mr Abbott's relentless, religious, remorseless repetitious ranting of a few words, which he expects should be accepted willy nilly as absolute "TRUTH". Are we not scraping he bottom of the barrell? Kenny Koala

anne watson:

23 Jul 2011 1:07:24pm

Thank you Annabel. At long last a journalist who has written about Abbotts 'absolute disrespect for the pillars of our society and public life in Australia.... eg the treasury, economists, scientists. the ABC and even the ignorance and hypocrisy to believe that he only is speaking the truth [ being called a liar especially sheeted home to Gillard].... All the very things that make Australia an open, stable,democratic, healthy and envied country in which to live is scoffed at and derided.For a politician who aims to be Prime Minister to show such blatant disrespect for our institutions and such looseness with the truth is both shameful and dangerous .

sillyfilly:

23 Jul 2011 1:10:11pm

Why don't we have a little test of consistency for the CSIRO, one of our most esteemed, and world renowned, scientific organisations.

If the anti-AGW/CC brigade still believe that non-scientists: like Jones, Bolt, Monckton, Akerman and their ilk from the Galieo Movement, are in any way morally or scientifically superior to the CSIRO, please feel free to show your absolute rejection of CSIRO science by junking every WI-FI (a CSIRO invention) product (as if!)

Wake up OZ, your being taken for a ride by this cult of scientific denial.

nrand:

23 Jul 2011 1:12:21pm

This just goes to show that it doesn't really matter to the masses what the politicians say and the Abbotts of the world know it. Trouble is, it makes it kind of hard to figure out what does matter. Who is in charge here anyway?

Tracker:

23 Jul 2011 1:19:21pm

re Well : "Governments need to be held to account and the opositions job is to do that. Abbott is an expert at it. His guts and determination far exceed what I expected from him when he took the reins. I could NOT vote for Turnbull now at all. Abbott will make a good PM and if he wins by a landslide, he should be able to to put this country back on track again. Looking forward to Abbott as PM". Excellent comment.

Rob :

Nellie:

23 Jul 2011 1:37:58pm

Treasury may well be right - but I don't want to take the risk. Particularly as the Gillard government 1. doesn't include me among households because I'm single and 2. classes me as a high income earner on my (average) wage.

Quillpower:

DaiBoku:

23 Jul 2011 1:44:24pm

Thanks Annabel. However it is a terrible reflection on us in Oz that the money spent on education results in irrationality, sloganism, shock jockery, and playing the person triumphing over decent qualified debate. What have we come to? If governments are unquestionably meant to protect us from attack, why not their duty to protect our future generations from our attacks on ourselves? Or our ignorance? Journalists need to help make sense of the debates, but the punters also need to inform themselves instead of listening to and reading inflammatory bread and circus slogans. Standing back it looks like the debate is between the financially rich, and PR rich polluters and the poor and ignorant flock. But how do we talk to the guys in the pub who are locked on to all the scare slogans?

Brad:

23 Jul 2011 1:51:33pm

Thanks for the article.

From God to climate skepticism, Tony Abbott has a long history of basing his decisions on not much evidence at all. Usually this wouldn't worry me in a person, but in a potential leader of our country it frightens the absollute hell out of me.

Con:

23 Jul 2011 1:53:20pm

This would be a good article except for the the fact that Tony Abbott doesn't really stand out as unelectable to most people in the current political environment. Labor is currently full of inept hacks stumbling from one disaster to another led by someone who is perceived to have undermined democracy by enthusiastically ignoring an undertaking made just days from the election. Comparing the 2 options, I (along with many others as the polls would suggest) have to vote for Tony Abbott at the next election...not because we think he's an outstanding leader, but rather because he's not Julia Gillard leading the Greens/Labor/Independents coalition. It's inconceivable that so many Labor MPs are willing to lose their seats for Julia Gillard, especially since all the changes they're trying to pass could easily be rescinded....I predict Julia will not be PM in 6 months time, the carbon tax will go to a vote, the Greens/independents will continue supporting Labor till the next election, and if all that happens then I also predict Tony Abbott will not be Liberal leader for that election.

Sven:

Matthew:

23 Jul 2011 2:01:33pm

I'm always amazed at the comments on the end of articles like this one. I can't see substance on either side (Liberal or Labor) at the moment and haven't for a few years, yet the vitriol spouted by both sides fanboi's in support of their team is amazing.

Mr. Abbott and Ms. Gillard are the same thing, politicians the likes of which i hope to never see again leading the major parties in Australia. The sooner both of them are gone the quicker i might start actually voting in the lower house elections again (last election i drew silly pictures).

Anybody saying that X is terrible and Y is fantastic needs to take their blinkers off. Neither has a monopoly on lack-of-substance at this point. They are both equally ridiculous.

Dannosaurus Rex:

23 Jul 2011 2:10:17pm

So Abbott is none other than Humpty Dumpty re-incarnated: "When I use a word [phrase, policy]," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Matt:

dogma:

Joe AF:

23 Jul 2011 3:16:10pm

Abbott's direct action policy being so full of holes, his lack of belief in climate change and the need to do anything useful about it, his opposition to Gillard's carbon pollution tax reflecting a popular opinion that he has so enthusiastically whipped up, indicate that he does not intend to implement his policy should he gain power. He will be able to crow about his consistent belief throughout this sorry mess that climate change is crap and nothing needs to be done about it.

GetReal:

23 Jul 2011 3:20:42pm

Well i am a day late to this long and fascinating conversation but it is fabulous to see how loony a politician can be and continue to get away with it because the media far too often does parrot sound bites out of the context of any historical or policy framework. And in the end it does not matter what nonsense or sincere sounding drivel comes out of Tony's mouth, his mates at The Australian newspaper will reposition it, use the quotes they want and do anything possible to push their own anti-environment pro-pollution double speak. Stop buying The Australian, thats what i say, never pay for their newsprint. That will make them rethink their 'commitment' to the failed policies of the right.

Teikko:

23 Jul 2011 3:34:58pm

What a clever piece by Annabel, Spot on. How terribly frustrating for anyone trying to understand Abbot's position on anything. Simply keep on asserting over and over and eventually you will get to the truth about anything ? Don't confuse me with facts. What a mantra. Perhaps that's why the label "mad monk" has been around for so long.

lionel hurst:

23 Jul 2011 3:57:40pm

Ms Crabb's diatribe is nothing more than yet another ABC free PR release for the Gillard Government. Like most of the extremist lefties employed by the ABC Crabb totally ignores public opinion. In doing this she (and the ABC which employs her to write this one-sided rubbish) is demonstrating a viewpoint that the Australian public is a bunch of easily led morons, or that public opinion does matter one iota. The truth is that a significant majority of Australians do not believe the Government and their tame paid scientists and economists on the carbon tax issue. Gillard supporters like Ms Crabb keep deliberately clouding the issue with their fear campaign about global warming, when the real issue is about poor management of the Australian economy, major cost of living rises that will go with a carbon tax and the poor credibility of the current minority Government which is dominated by the Green's agenda.Global warming is accepted as a fact by most Australians. Also accepted is that Australia's contribution to it is so miniscule that control is not a matter of urgency, but is a matter of responsible reduction planning, without extra taxes, over the next 25 years. Australians are not dopes - they know they can't believe Gillard is genuine in her alleged concerns about air pollution while she is backing the increased mining and sale of coal to the world's biggest polluters.

Paul:

JohnT:

23 Jul 2011 4:20:15pm

"....he encouraged voters to draw reasonable conclusions from empirical evidence, and to listen to the science on climate change."

I read that based on figures from a 2009 article, published in "Nature" magazine by Prof. Damien Matthews of Concordia University, that the 16million tonnes of CO2 emissions that Gillard wants to save by 2020 will affect the climate temperature by 0.0024C. - ie stuff all

Perhaps this figure is wrong, in which case I would like someone to refute it based on empirical evidence - not a vague "the science says so".

But if it is correct, who in the world is going to risk their economy for practically no gain? The response might be "More fool you Australia!"

stirrer:

jaybee:

23 Jul 2011 5:18:43pm

I am appalled by the inability of the Governemnt to sell it's policy, dismayed by the tabloid and some of the regular medias lack of analysis and just reporting "he says,/ she says". Then that leaves the opposition..they leave me most concerned about Australia's future.politics in this country must be at it's nadir.

davidgrantlloyd:

maria:

23 Jul 2011 5:26:36pm

So what do we do? Go with the libs who have few costed policies and an idiot leader? Go with the greens who forget to add the economy to their ideals? Or with the ALP who are poor at getting their message through? I am with julia - at least she beleives in evidence based practice and tries to balance the economy.

Bruce from Brisbane:

23 Jul 2011 5:43:30pm

Interesting read. You would never get to read these facts in a Murdoch paper...can't upset your boy while he is looking after your interests. Unfortunately most people believe the crap they read in the mainstream commercial media without question.

paradise:

23 Jul 2011 5:50:34pm

Nobody commenting hereabouts for months seems to believe either the government or opposition garage sale of views. By reading widely and constantly, I do my best to see trends and likelihoods. Carbon taxing to promote change, modify usages and fund R and D in climate related matters seems a good idea. The rollout of the NB scheme seems good. The issue of refugees, the Murray-Darling, infrastructure planning and many other vital issues in education, health and reform seem to be getting done. We are prosperous and quite secure, yet unhappy and often angry. Why? I remember a childhood in WWII, post depression, which was quite severe in shortages, narrowness of hope and outlook, spare of material goods and cash. It's so good now, just a few years later, really. Political standards are considered so low by most one has to scour the history books to get a comparison with the 19C. How can there be general loyalty when you shop anywhere for price, thus ensuring you get no service and little satisfaction. Players go through umpteen football clubs. Casualisation of work makes for general ignorance and philistinism. Formal religion has declined; who would want to learn under a priest? Who can see friendly common sense in extremism? What does a neighbourhood mean now? I used to tell my doubting students, forty years ago, That after a century of education improvement, we were about to go backwards and become electronic peasants. Perhaps a Murdoch is worse than a Hitler or Stalin after all, though I doubt that. Yet what future ..?

Al:

23 Jul 2011 5:53:47pm

It's been far too long now that the ABC journalists have allowed Tony Abbott away with saying the first thing that comes into his head, to oppose an idea,to say "NO". In my opinion it has been the fallacious idea that some journalists have to mirror the News Ltd headlines to be "successful". Wrong.Now that it has been shown that the leaders of News Ltd have 'no clothes', we may be about to see more articles emanating from the 'Mark Scott stable' challenging the view of the News Ltd and their journalist's 'feral' products.

Lord Monckton has been used by the coalition, to denigrate the views of 'science'. Therefore one is forced to ask, did Lord Monckton challenge the views of medical scientists in any way, when they advised him of the recommended treatment for his suffering "Graves Disease"?........... Of course not.If Tony Abbot was advised that immunisation was not proved, would he say no to it?As News Ltd have nailed themselves to the Coalition mast, I hope more ABC articles will tell the truth.

zaf:

Firstly he generally gives straight answers to questions unlike Gillard who is incapable of a straight answer!

Secondly he didn't get where he is by telling a lie!

Those who support him are neither Bogans, morons or whatever other insulting names you want to trot out, they're simply every day Australians who want honesty and a straight answer!!

Contrary to what you armchair experts might think about the science, Gillard has failed miserably in promoting the whole climate change issue as Rudd did before her! Neither of them have fostered balanced debate that informs the public at a pace they can follow. Labors whole attitude has been we're right, get out of the way, we know what we're doing, when clearly they've made a mess of almost every major policy implementation since they got elected. If you disagree, can you name one major policy that has been implemented on time, in full and on budget!Debate on alternative beliefs has been stifled, ridiculed or ignored because they had the numbers to do it. Well they don't anymore and their gross ineptitude in handling the issue will more than likely cost them Government!Regrettably for Labor I suspect that the brand is so badly damaged that another extended period in opposition is looming! Generally the population no longer trusts Labor and that's now worsened because of there involvement with a radical group such as the Greens!

It's curious that in putting this piece together my spell check kept wanting to change Gillard to Dillard, maybe it knows something!!

Ron Huttner, Armadale 3143:

23 Jul 2011 6:00:36pm

My late mother had a Ph.D in chemistry and taught high-school science and maths for most of her working life. She used to use the expression "colourless, odourless, tasteless and weightless" to describe politicians such as Tony Abbott, rather than carbon dioxide !!

aiden:

I fail to see a problem because Abbott has two points of view when it comes to climate change etc.

He has a personal view and he has a public view or party view! Are you seriously suggesting that there aren't Labor politicians who disagree on the issue but toe the party line?

Hypocrisy abounds with ALP supporters it would seem! Thankfully most of the population according to the current polls would appear to have a more realistic view!

How many of you climate change experts have read further than ALP Policy and headlines? How many of you have personally examined the alternative case in detail? Are you aware that even Ross Garnaut has said Australia acting alone is virtually useless? I suspect that the majority of people follow like lemmings because Julia and Wayne said so, which explains why the ALP is in the mess it's in, no one questions them, you blindly vote for them without querying what's happening! because Julia said it, doesn't make it so!

If I were an ALP supporter I'd be hostile! To have voted for a party and then have them make such a mess of it, I'd be furious, I'd be complaining, asking why and telling them if they want my vote next time they need to get their act together! Not blindly accepting the interminable spin, spin, spin!

Mark of melb:

23 Jul 2011 6:11:07pm

Remember how tony & co attacked the budget by yelling how bad the budget was and how it was an attack on the middle class (class warfare) well it passed parliament without any objections or changes. Tony & co is all hysteria and media show.

patarus:

I guess there must be some naivity out there when it comes the calculation of facts and figures rightly so.

But Julia made a quantum leap and said she would answer all questions.

I suggest you (my ABC set up a webpage or whatever) where me the average punter can lodge my questions for Julia to answer.

Julia has this sense that she is God answer to the save the planet. Good to have confidence but me along with Tony and whoever else is in his team don't quite believe treasury.

There are many out there who don't believe the Bible and Julia happens to be one. So this predication of the argument is predictable.

So Julia you have not answered my questions and for starters

how many square kilometres of Solar Energy farms would be required to produce all the baseload energy in Australia (BLEA)

ditto for Wind Power how many individual wind turbine generators to provide BLEA?

ditto how many gas fired generators to provide all the BLEA ?

ditto for tidal power - how many square kilometres of ocean shore required?

For each one how much would it cost ?For each one how much CO2 would it save?For each one how long will it take to complete?For each one what is the life of each operation?For each one how many people would it need?What is the carbon footprint for each one to implement and ongoing footprint to maintain?

Pass these initial questions onto Julia for me. I am sure there are plenty of others

Hershey:

23 Jul 2011 6:56:45pm

It's true that Abbott has been all over the place on climate change. But the delicious paradox is that it encourages more people to vote for him. Why? Because the majority of people, probably two thirds of them, either don't believe in or don't care much about the claims of human induced climate change. What that means is that they'd be happy if Abbott never did a thing about climate change if he got into power. In fact they're probably secretly hoping he wouldn't, hoping instead that he'll redcue taxes and take the pressure of energy prices. Many, like Abbott, don't want to say all this explicitly because they're intimidated by the noisy, sanctiomonious minority who claim they want to save the planet, barrier reef, whales, etc. So, you have this curious dance where Abbott says the politically correct thing one day and then something different another day - a wink to his constituency that it's OK, he's with them. Pass the popcorn, this is the most entertainment we've had since the last election campaign watching Rudd trying to embarrass Gillard.

James:

KJeith Simpson:

23 Jul 2011 7:05:53pm

How predictable are all of these comments. You can all say what you like against Abbott. Just look around you and see the pain that The Prime Minister and her cohorts have already inflicted upon us!. Abbott is our savour. Let him be, and he will take us back to the prosperity and happiness we knew before 'yet another ' failed Labour Party experiment led us into this predicament.

TQ:

Dave B:

23 Jul 2011 9:05:21pm

Thanks for this healthy summary, Annabel... All I can do is echo the comments of everyone else here who feels disgusted that Abbot's abilities to be a policy chameleon and high-school science teacher are not exposed by other media outlets that most Australians seem to be basing their opinions on.

A Retov:

23 Jul 2011 9:07:57pm

Rule #1. Abbott is always right.Rule #2. If Abbott is wrong, see Rule #1.Rule #3. Abbott does not contradict himself.Rule #4. If Abbott does contradict himself, see Rules 1 & 3.Rule #5. Abbott knows more than scientists, economists and voters (especially those reds, greenies and brownies).Rule #6. If Abbott knows less than aforementioned, see Rules 1,3 & 5.Rule #7. If unsure about Rule #1 refer to the Cardinal Rule.Rule #8. The Cardinal will always support the Abbott.Rule #9. The Cardinal is always right (er, Right); more right than Abbott.Rule #10. Climate change is/is not crap depending upon interpretation of same, under Rules 1,3,5, 7 & 9.

So, you see - its simple logic which brings us to the inevitable conclusion that we must have as many elections as is required to bring an end to interminable whining. Only in that climate will he be happy with change!

Paladin:

23 Jul 2011 9:23:24pm

To insite the howling ignorant mob, all you need to do is say the word TAX and off they go.Abbott is only interested in power and sport. God help Australia if this buffoon ever gets it.His support truly indicates the true standard of inteligence of the average Australian.

Rob W:

23 Jul 2011 10:04:01pm

Still whinging about no facts? Just watch the new government ads. All the facts you need to be convienced we are on the right track.Why do you think Germany is investing so much (80Billion) into renewable energy. By now they have already achieved 0.1% of renewable energy thank to that investment.But theirs is mainly wind. We have much more sun and should focus on Solar. We will lose jobs and it will cost more but according to latest pricing it should be no more than $10Trillion to replace our energy with solar. It will also strengthen our relationship with China, who would produce most of those solar cells.

chris:

23 Jul 2011 10:16:14pm

With all the talk about the governments tax on carbon and how it will cause the end of this country as we know it no one is asking Abbott how his emitions traiding scheme ie; carbon tax will work after all he very well may get in so every one out there that thinks a vote for tony = no carbon tax is wrong, differance is he will let the market set the price and all consumers will pay and industary will have no insentive to change worse still really big companies will make money from it and bleed smaller ones dry.

Uncle Buck:

James Adelaide:

23 Jul 2011 10:38:39pm

Many writers here question why, in the absence of facts , policies or consistency does Tony Abbott get good polling numbers?

(Conspiracy theory spoiler alert): Could it be because of the support of the News Limited Newspapers? They own 70% of our newspapers nationally (100% of those in Adelaide). Shock Jocks (and even 891 Adelaide ABC local radio) take their discussion points each day from these papers. I have had a number of otherwise intelligent colleagues at work spouting Rupert opinions as if they were their own... They are readily identifable because they use the same phrases, reasoning and conclusions.

But Mr Hartigan assures us that News limited do nothing illegal in Australia. Is disinformation to a nation illegal?

mark browne:

23 Jul 2011 10:39:16pm

at last kay gillard is corrrect.bout time some one turned the blow touch on to tony.... who i have witnessed him saying candidly that climate change is a load of crap...yet he belives in god throught the catholic church oh the irony..

Steve:

23 Jul 2011 10:49:22pm

Lets be straight here, some very eminent scientists do not believe that human activity will cause much climate change: BBC Science/Environment report on 22 May reports the professor of Meteorology at MIT, and former member of fhe IPCC states that human activity will contribute less than a degree to global temperature warming. Last time I looked MIT has greater clout on such things than our hand-picked Climate Change CSIRO experts.Accurate thermometers were only invented 250 years ago, and as NASA states, we have only had accurate temperature readings based on thermometers for about 120 years.As my old meteorology lecturer used to say: 'If anyone says this or that year was a bad weather year in Australia, they don't know what they are talking about - we have not collected enough accurate records to tell!!

Which party:

the igloo:

Wazza from Traralgon:

23 Jul 2011 11:05:03pm

The carbon tax just doesnt make sense. The 500 worst polluters will get slugged for the carbon they emit and in turn, the government acknowledges these companies will pass this cost on to consumers. Then Gillard says welfare recipients and some workers will be compensated. This is socialism at its worst. Why not simply stop coal exports and shut down those polluters who are not providing essential services? This will prevent the millions of working Australians from bailing out these polluters and directly punish those who choose to engage in practices harmful to our environment. Of course the government is too gutless to take on the miners after seeing what happened to Kevin Rudd and would rather punish the working class.

Aaron:

23 Jul 2011 11:05:39pm

What a load of babbling rubbish as an article. Annabel, you've tried way too hard writing this up. Blah blah blah ...This isn't news. How about reporting something of worth rather than the life and times of Tony Abbott. Let me condense your however many word article to a few words. Opposition leader opposes Government policy. It astounds that a journalist of all people should make a statement "sleeps soundly at night unhaunted by the ghosts of his own inconsistency" since when did your profession become anything that could be trusted or consistent. Hope you can produce something a little more constructive next time.

MickyG:

24 Jul 2011 12:33:55am

So ask a scientist who believes in climate change how long a reduction of 100% human caused carbon emmissions would take to have any effect. as apposed to say just one of the many volcano farts that would reverse it in an instant

Firefly:

24 Jul 2011 12:43:32am

This is compelling reading indeed!

Tony Abbott is & always has been like the proverbial ostrich with its head under the sand!!!! No power on earth or for that matter elsewhere, will convince him otherwise. He probably has Reagan's words "Facts are stupid things" framed in very large letters on his office wall.

Malcolm Turnbull is sadly a lost opportunity!

If the Australian people opt to vote for Abbott at the next federal election & he wins, they will be held accountable for elevating the village idiot to the seat of power...

Abbott's words at the interview in 2009 "But look, I think I am as well-versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be." says it all. Average being the key word here!